JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J. (Oral) - The parents of deceased Richa Sikka aged 22 years have preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 2. Based on the materials produced by by the claimants, the Tribunal has fixed the salary of deceased Richa Sikka at Rs.13,000/- per month. The father of the deceased was 55 years and the mother of the deceased was 48 years at the time when the accident took place. Their average age was taken by the Tribunal for applying the multiplier of ‘11’ to arrive at the loss of dependency. But the Tribunal having observed that some amount would have been spent towards marriage of the deceased, had she survived, by the parents, awarded a sum of Rs.5 lacs. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the age of the deceased which was lower, compared to the age of the claimants, should have been taken into consideration while applying the multiplier. It is his further submission that the reason assigned by the Tribunal for deducting some amount from out of the total compensation is not sound. He would also further submit that nothing was awarded towards transportation expenses, loss of estate and funeral expenses. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would submit that the multiplier was rightly adopted on the basis of the observation found a place in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra and others, 1996(4) SCC 362 . He would also submit that the parents would not have depended on a female member of the family during their evening of life. Further, they would have spent a sizeable amount towards marriage of the deceased, if she had survived. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted some amount from the total compensation and awarded a sum of 5 lacs, he would further submit. 5. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Shyam Singh and others, [2011(4) Law Herald (SC) 2843 : 2011(2) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 200] : (2011) 7 SCC 65 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that average age of parents of deceased shall be the determining factor for deciding the multiplier. 6. 5. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Shyam Singh and others, [2011(4) Law Herald (SC) 2843 : 2011(2) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 200] : (2011) 7 SCC 65 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that average age of parents of deceased shall be the determining factor for deciding the multiplier. 6. I have also decided in Ralla Singh vs. Balwant Singh and others, FAO No.6647 of 2011 dated 7.1.2013, relying upon a Three Judges’ Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trilok Chandra’s case that the age of the parents in the case of death of a bachelor/spinster shall be the relevant factor for determining the appropriate multiplier. 7. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier of ‘11’ as the age of the parents was between 48-55 years. 8. In the instant case, the deceased was found to be the eldest daughter in the family. Even at the age of 22 years, she had started earning a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month. The deceased had a younger brother and a sister. She would have contributed her earnings to the family not only upto her marriage, but also after her marriage. Further, even the daughters would contribute something, if not in a large scale, to the parents even after they get married. In Sarla Verma vs. DTC, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has standardized the multiplier to be applied. In view of the above, I do not concur with the observation made by the Tribunal that total compensation will have to be substantially reduced as the parents would have spent some amount towards the marriage of the deceased, had she survived. In other words, the entire loss of income less 50% of the income she would have spent towards her personal living expenses will have to be awarded as compensation. 9. As rightly pointed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, nothing was awarded towards conventional heads. Therefore, I have proposed to award a sum of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards transportation expenses. 10. 9. As rightly pointed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, nothing was awarded towards conventional heads. Therefore, I have proposed to award a sum of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards transportation expenses. 10. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.8,58,000/- (Rs.13000 - 50% thereof being Rs.6500= Rs.6500 x 12= Rs.78,000 x 11= Rs.8,58,000/-) towards loss of dependency, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5000/- towards transportation expenses, in aggregate a sum of Rs.8,78,000/- with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced portion of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded. The rate of interest and the apportionment of compensation applied by the Tribunal for the amount awarded by it stands confirmed. 11. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is allowed in part. ---------0.B.S.0------------