JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: (Oral) - The parents of deceased Sukhdeep Singh aggrieved by the quantum of compensation have preferred the present appeal. 2. Deceased Sukhdeep Singh was 24 years at the time when the accident took place. He was a bachelor. 3. The Tribunal arrived at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/-. It deducted 1/3rd of the income towards future living expenses of the deceased bachelor. From the annual income, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- also was deducted on the ground that part of his future income would have been diverted towards maintaining his wife and children. Only a sum of Rs. 2000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards transportation was awarded. The future prospects of the deceased was not taken into consideration. The Tribunal also has not awarded interest on the awarded amount. 4. Heard the submissions made on either side. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has not applied the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation based on the materials available on record. 6. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is found that the Tribunal has deducted 66% of his income towards his personal living expenses. It, firstly, deducted 1/3rd of the income and thereafter a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deducted from the income of the deceased. As per the decision in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal should have deducted only 50% of the income towards personal living expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor who had left behind only his parents. 7. As per Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2035 : 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 18972] : 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 882, at least 30% of the income should have been added towards future prospects. Only a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation expenses was awarded by the Tribunal on conventional head. Nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate. 8. Only a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation expenses was awarded by the Tribunal on conventional head. Nothing has been awarded towards loss of estate. 8. The Tribunal should have adopted ‘14’ as multiplier instead of ‘15’ taking into consideration the age of the mother who was 44 years at the time of accident. 9. In view of the above, a sum of Rs. 4,36,800/- (Rs.4000+30% thereof being Rs.1200= Rs.5200-50%= Rs.2600x12= Rs.31,200x14= Rs.4,36,800/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, in aggregate a sum of Rs.4,56,800/- with interest @ 7.5% on the entire amount from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded. 10. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is partly allowed.