RAFIQ, J.—Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that age of the deceased has been wrongly taken to be 40 years, whereas he was 32 years of age and hence multiplier of 16 instead of 15, should have been applied. It was argued that the matter has been remanded by this court and thereupon compensation was re-computed. 2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the award, I find that learned Tribunal computed the compensation on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). The learned Tribunal has found the age of the deceased to be 40 years on the basis of the age mentioned in the claim petition itself as well as in the post mortem report and other evidence contrary to that effect was not produced by the appellants on record. Therefore, multiplier of 15 has rightly been applied in the age group of 36-40 years as per the judgment of Sarla Verma supra. 30% towards the future prospects have rightly been added in the age group of 40-50 years as per the judgment of Sarla Verma supra. 1/4th deductions towards the own expenses of the deceased have rightly been made being the dependents four in number as per the judgment of Sarla Verma supra. The compensation in all other non-pecuniary has also been sufficiently been awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.10,67,320/- has been awarded, which is quite and sufficient amount of compensation in a death claim. 3. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. The appeal is therefore dismissed.