JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral):- The claimant-appellant has preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon on account of death of Satpal, in an vehicular accident that took place on 29.10.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.10.2007 deceased Satpal and his brother Satywan were going on their respective motor cycles to attend to their job. When they crossed gate No.2 of Maruti Suzuki Company, IMT Manesar, a car bearing registration No.HR-26-AM-8492, being driven by respondent No.1 Dalip Kumar in a rash and negligent manner struck against the motor cycle of the deceased, As a result thereof the deceased fell down and received multiple and grievous injuries. He was removed to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon where he succumbed to his injuries. 3. Claimant-appellant who is the mother of the deceased has preferred claim petition bearing No.207 of 2007 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gurgaon, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 8.4.2009, whereby an amount of Rs.3,51,905/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of deceased Satpal. 4. Feeling dissatisfied, the claimant-appellant came up in the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that deceased Satpal was 21 years of age at the time of the accident. The deceased was working in a firm namely Track Components Pvt. Ltd and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the claimant appellant who is the mother of the deceased was 46 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore the multiplier of 12 has wrongly been applied by the learned Tribunal, the same ought to have been 13. He also contends that the amount awarded under the other conventional heads is also on the lower side. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that sufficient and adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the instant case the age of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that sufficient and adequate compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the instant case the age of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute. Therefore, keeping in view the age of the claimant being 46 years at the time of the accident the multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied instead of 12, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77. Ordered accordingly. This Court feels that the amount awarded under the heads transportion & last rites is on the lower side. Therefore, another amount of Rs.10,000/- is allowed towards these heads. Rs.15,000 more is allowed towards the head love and affection. 9. The enhanced amount comes to Rs. 52,000/- (25,000/- (awarded by this Court under the heads transportation, special diet and love and affection) + 27,000 (increase in the annual dependency after applying the increased multiplier)= Rs. 52,000/- which shall be payable by the respondents to the claimant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 7 ½ % per annum from the date of filing the appeal till its realisation. 10. With the above modification in the impugned award, the appeal is partly allowed. ----------------------