Anil Kumar Sharma, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This FAFO has been filed challenging the award dated 16.2.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit in M.A.C.P. No. 5 of 2003 between Mehmood & others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & others. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,500/- as compensation to the appellant with 6% annual interest. Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have also been directed to prepare a cheque of amount in favour of the Tribunal for deposit of the same within three months from the date of award. It is provided in the order that in case of default, respondents no. 1 and 2 would be liable to pay 9% interest on the amount awarded and that claimant no. 3, Km. Tavassum, would be entitled to 1/4th part of the amount, whereas the remaining amount would be paid equally between respondents no. 1 and 2. Sri B.N. Agrawal holding brief of Sri Sanjai Agarwal, has argued that the Tribunal has misread the statement of P.W. 2 and has wrongly held that the deceased equally contributed towards the accident. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse; that the Tribunal has also committed an illegality in holding the income of the deceased as Rs.1500/- per month though there was sufficient evidence on record that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month. It is stated that the deceased was driving his motor cycle on his left side and he did not contribute to any extent in the occurrence of the accident. He further submits that the Tribunal has not only erred in awarding very low compensation towards mental pain, agony and grief caused, but has also not awarded compensation towards medical expenses which was incurred during the treatment of the deceased and his future prospects. On perusal of record, we find that the appellant has neither filed site-plan before us nor the alleged statement of P.W. 2. As regards, 50% contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has decided this question of fact by issue no. 5 concluding that there was contributory negligence of the deceased also as he was not driving the motor cycle cautiously. Regarding question of low compensation as claimed by counsel for the appellant, we find that the deceased was unmarried boy aged about 21 years. 5 concluding that there was contributory negligence of the deceased also as he was not driving the motor cycle cautiously. Regarding question of low compensation as claimed by counsel for the appellant, we find that the deceased was unmarried boy aged about 21 years. His mother and father are alleged to be aged about 55 and 60 years old. Therefore, since father of the deceased was older than mother, hence the age of father is to be taken into account for computation of compensation. We also note that no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record regarding age of parents. If age of father of the deceased is taken to be 60 to 65 years, multiplier of 5 would apply, but the Tribunal has taken age of his father between 55 to 60 years and has applied multiplier of 8 which is on higher side. Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried boy of 21 years old, therefore, deduction towards personal ought to have been taken out as 1/2 and not 1/3rd from the amount of compensation and living expenses. In this regard, case of Smt. Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TAC- 677 may be referred to which is fully applicable in the instant case. As regards medical expenses are concerned, the appellants have not adduced any evidence in this regard. The notional income of the deceased was also rightly taken by the Tribunal as the claimants utterly failed to establish by cogent and corroborative evidence that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The deceased was a student and it cannot be said with certainty that he had a bright or a black future before him. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that the compensation already awarded to the appellant, is much higher than what they should have been awarded. Therefore, no case for enhancement is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. _