JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Learned Counsel of the appellant, placing reliance upon 2014 (1) UAD 91, Radhakrishna & Another v. Gokul & Others, has argued that the multiplier should have been applied taking average age of the parents into consideration. 2. I have gone through the judgment so cited by the learned Counsel of the appellant and find that the said judgment is not applicable in the present controversy for the reason that in Radhakrishan’s case, the deceased was unemployed 19 years old student of engineering. So, lump sum compensation was awarded by the Hon’ble Apex Court taking into consideration the age of his parents. 3. In the present case, the facts are entirely different. The deceased was 25 years’ old at the time of accident and he was employed in Birla Tyres at Laksar, Haridwar. So, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case, multiplier of 17 has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal. 4. This appeal has no force. It is hereby dismissed.