JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.9.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, in case MACP No.7-N/00, titled Viran Bali vs. Ashok Kumar & ors., whereby an amount of Rs.3,20,200/- was awarded in favour of claimant and against respondent No.3 along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization (for short, impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2.Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50.00 lacs, as per the break-up given in the claim petition, on account of death of her son in a traffic accident occurred on 26.9.1999 at about 3.30 p.m. near Durga Mandir on Pathankot­Damtal Jalandhar highway in Badhroya, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, while he was riding on the scooter bearing No.PAH-4857 as pillion rider. It was averred that truck No.HR-21-0597, being driven by respondent No.1 Ashok Kumar, rashly and negligently, hit the said scooter from back side resulting in the death of Raj Babbar, son of the claimant. 3.Insured/owner, driver and insurer (respondent No.3 herein) resisted the claim petition and filed written statements. On the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Raj Babbar deceased died of due to rash/negligent driving of truck No.HR-21-0597 by respondent No.1? OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license? OPR 4.Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent No.3? OPR-3. 5.Whether the petition is collusive? OPR-3. 6.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3 7. Relief.” 4. The claimant has examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of her case. Respondents – Insurer, insured and driver have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant remained unrebutted. 5. The Tribunal, after examining the entire case and the evidence on record, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,20,200/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till its final realization in favour of the claimant/appellant, vide impugned award. 6. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant remained unrebutted. 5. The Tribunal, after examining the entire case and the evidence on record, granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,20,200/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till its final realization in favour of the claimant/appellant, vide impugned award. 6. The findings recorded by the Tribunal have attained finality so far as they relate to the insurer, insured/owner and driver, since they have not questioned the same. 7. The claimant/appellant has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only issue to be determined in this appeal is – whether the compensation granted is adequate? 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has fallen in error in returning the finding that the claimant, mother of the deceased, was entitled to only 1/5th out of the income of the deceased. The argument is correct for the simple reason that the Apex Court in case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has held that in case deceased is bachelor and parents are claimants, 50% is to be deducted out of the income of the deceased and the parents are held entitled to 50% of the income of the deceased. 9. The judgment rendered in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), came for consideration before a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Ramesh Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 and it held that Sarla Verma’s case is a thumb rule and upheld the findings recorded in the said case. 10. Having said so, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,000/-, instead of Rs.1 600/-, as held by the Tribunal. 11. The second question is – Whether the multiplier of 16 applied by the Tribunal is appropriate and just multiplier applicable? The multiplier applied is at the higher side because the Tribunal had to take into consideration the age of the claimants read with the age of the deceased and the multiplier, as given in the Schedule attached with the Motor Vehicles Act read with the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), is to be deducted by 3. While going through the Schedule read with the age, multiplier of 13 is prescribed. After deduction, the multiplier of 10 was to be applied. Thus, the multiplier of 10 is just and appropriate applicable in this case. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.4000 x 12 x 10 i.e. Rs.4,80,000/- as compensation. 12.Keeping in view the facts of the case, I am also of the opinion that the Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding compensation under the heads loss of love and affection and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000 and Rs.3,000/-, respectively. The claimant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/-, under the respective heads. In all, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.2,000/-, with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its final realization. 13.Accordingly, the impugned award is modified. The enhanced amount be deposited within a period of six weeks. 14.The appeal is disposed of alongwith pending applications.