RAFIQ, J.—Claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by quantum of compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- in a death claim, awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.2), Beawar, vide its award dated 20.08.2011 in MAC Case No.423/2011 (267/2010), on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in law in not applying the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased. 2. Learned counsel in this respect cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in P.S. Somanathan and Others vs. District Insurance Officer – MACD 2011 (SC) 19 = 2011(1) CCR 299 (SC), and argued that the Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), has held that multiplier should be applied on the basis of age of the deceased rather than age of parents. In Sarla Verma, supra, the Supreme Court in Para 38 of the judgment has noticed its earlier judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Trilok Chandra and others – (1996) 4 SCC 362 = RLW 1996(2) SC 130, wherein it was held that where a child dies and dependents are parents, the age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. This view has also been taken in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Shyam Singh & Others - (2011) 7 SCC 65 = 2011(2) CCR 1132 (SC). 3. In the present case, age of mother of deceased was 47 years and that of father was 50 years, therefore, they were fall within the block of 45-50 years and, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, the multiplier in their case would be 13, and that is the multiplier which has been applied by learned Tribunal. 4. On the aspect of the income, the learned counsel though has stated that the deceased was electrician, therefore, he should be held to be a skilled labour and on that basis the income should have been determined at Rs.4000/- per month and a deduction should be to the extent of 1/3rd. 4. On the aspect of the income, the learned counsel though has stated that the deceased was electrician, therefore, he should be held to be a skilled labour and on that basis the income should have been determined at Rs.4000/- per month and a deduction should be to the extent of 1/3rd. Even if the monthly income of the deceased is take at Rs.4000/-, the deduction towards personal expenses is to be made to the extent of one-half, and on deducting one-half therefrom, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.2000/-, whereas learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- and deducted 1/3rd therefrom towards personal expenses and the loss of dependency in that event also comes to Rs.2000/-. 5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 6. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.