JUDGMENT : Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is an appeal brought by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer against the award dated 05.09.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, S.A.S., Nagar (Mohali) (for short 'the Tribunal'). Gurdeep Singh alias Babbu died in a road side accident that took place on 04.04.2012. On his death, a claim petition had been brought by his parents seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide the impugned award in a sum of Rs. 6,73,000/-. 2. Gurdeep Singh alias Babbu is stated to have been an agriculturist, who was also running a dairy and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. He is claimed to have been 24 years of age. He met with the accident when he was driving his motorcycle. 3. The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. They have denied the averments of the claimants regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased. They have denied the claimants to deserve any compensation and have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 6000/- per month and adopted the multiplier of 18. The award has been challenged on both the aspects. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the income of the deceased as assessed by learned Tribunal at Rs. 6000/- per month is on a higher side. According to him, the multiplier adopted on the age of the deceased is also not correct. 6. The deceased had been 24 years of age and he was driving his motorcycle when the accident took place. A person working as a casual labourer cannot be believed to be having a motorcycle. He cannot be believed even to enjoy riding a motorcycle within his income. He is also claimed to be an agriculturist and dairy farmer. Therefore, his income taken at Rs. 6000/- per month cannot be held to be wrong in any manner. 7. Coming to the multiplier, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reshma Kumari and Ors. He is also claimed to be an agriculturist and dairy farmer. Therefore, his income taken at Rs. 6000/- per month cannot be held to be wrong in any manner. 7. Coming to the multiplier, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and another (AIR 2013 SC (Civ) 1731) that if the age of the deceased is upto 15 years then irrespective of the fact that the claim petition has been brought under section 166 or 163-A, the compensation has to be assessed adopting the multiplier of 15 and thereafter the multiplier has to be selected as per column No.6 of the table given in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another AIR 2009 SC 3104 . This judgment makes no distinction between the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants for the purpose of selecting a multiplier. It does not lay down anywhere that in case of a bachelor, the multiplier has to be selected on the basis of the age of the claimant. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (AIR 2012 SC (Civ) 1954) has categorically laid down that the multiplier has to be selected in accordance with the age of the deceased irrespective of the fact that he is married or not. So in view of the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali's case, supra, the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal cannot be questioned. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of learned Tribunal on the aforesaid points. 9. Hence, finding no merit in the appeal, I dismiss the same.