BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 17th January, 2008, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track, No.4), Ajmer, decreed an amount of Rs.1,88,400/- in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the impugned award, the appellant has beseeched to enhanced the quantum of compensation keeping in view her old age. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that on 21st June, 2005, the deceased Gyan Chand was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. RJ-06-P-562. It is alleged that the driver Mushtaq Khan of the Bus was driving the vehicle at National Highway No.8 very rashly and negligently and at such a high speed that the bus capsized and Gyan Chand sitting inside the bus died on the spot. After the death of Gyan Chand, the sole dependent, her mother Smt. Vimla Devi wife of late Shri Sohan lal filed a claim petition and the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after conclusion of trial of the claim petition, decreed the aforesaid amount in her favour, hence, the appeal of enhancement. 3. Ms. Chitra Goyal Advocate appears for the respondent no.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the deceased Gyan Chand was unmarried at the time of accident and he left behind the sole dependent his mother Smt. Vimla Devi, aged 50 years. The Tribunal having considered the age of Smt. Vimla Devi to be 50 years applied the multiplier of 11, whereas, in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8648 of 2007 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)), the Apex Court in Para 21 of the judgment has proposed the multiplier of 13 for the purpose, falling under the age group of 46-50 years, hence, having applied the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency may be re-reckoned and the amount of compensation be enhanced. No other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant except this. 6. Ms. No other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant except this. 6. Ms. Chitra Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 Insurance Company does not object to this argument, as it is based on the judgment of the Apex Court. 7. Having carefully scanned the impugned award and Para 21 of the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), it is found that the Apex Court proposed the multiplier of 13 for the persons falling in the age group of 46-50 years. The age of sole dependent Smt. Vimla Devi was 50 years at the relevant point of time, hence, if the multiplier of 13 is applied, the loss of dependency is reckoned as under:- 1200 x 12 x 13 = Rs.1,87,200/- 8. Thus, the loss of dependency on account of death of victim Gyan Chand comes to Rs. 1,87,200/- instead of Rs. 1,58,400/-. The Tribunal is found to have awarded the amount on other heads also, wherein I do not find any ground to interfere with. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant-appellant is held entitled to claim Rs. 2,17,200/- as compensation instead of Rs. 1,88,400/- from the respondents. She is also held entitled to claim the interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the claim petition till it is actually realized. 10. The impugned award stands modified as indicated here-in-above. 11. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.