Judgment Aruna Jagadeesan, J. 1. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of the award dated 24.01.2012 on the file of the Chief Small Causes Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.4647 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.13,57,052/-with interest on 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.107 of 2013. On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, aggrieved over the award, filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1136 of 2014. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case is stated hereunder. The deceased was travelling as a pillion ridder in a scooter bearing Registration No.TN-05-F-4694 from Alandur to Anna Nagar along 100 feet road, south to north direction and the said scooter was driven by her friend Mrs. Shali. While they were proceeding opposite to Tata Consultancy, a bus owned by the Transport Corporation came behind the scooter and dashed against the scooter. As a result of which, the deceased/pillion ridder sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day in the hospital. 4. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus which is not seriously disputed by the Transport Corporation. That apart, the evidence clearly indicated that the bus was driven behind the scooter and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, both the riders fell down causing fatal injuries to the pillion ridder, the deceased herein. 5. We do not find any infirmity in the said findings fastening the negligence on the part of the bus driver. Therefore, in this regard, the order passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. 6. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,57,052/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, as detailed below:- Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Award amount 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 13,52,052/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 13,57,052/- 7. 6. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,57,052/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, as detailed below:- Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Award amount 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 13,52,052/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 13,57,052/- 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that the quantum of amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is irrational and therefore, it has to be reduced considerably. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the claimants are the parents and unmarried sister of the deceased who were depending on the deceased and he vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not fair and reasonable and it requires to be enhanced considerably. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. Broadly speaking, in the case of death, the basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses, loss to the estate etc. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to sudden demise of the deceased in the accident. Therefore, it is trite that the compensation awarded should not be inadequate, at the same time, it should neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact, uniform rule for measuring the value of human live and measuring the damage and it cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculation but the amount recoverable depends on broad facts and circumstances of each case. 10. In The State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur (2003 ACJ 1800 (SC)), the Honourable Supreme Court considered the words 'just and reasonable' occurring in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in determination of compensation and held that just and reasonable compensation does not mean a bonanza or a source of profit to the victim of the accident. 11. Coming to the facts of this case, the deceased was 23 years at the time of accident. She was a Team Leader in M/s. Net Star BPO Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai, and was earning Rs.13,000/-per month. P.W.2, an official from the said Company produced the salary certificate of the deceased. 11. Coming to the facts of this case, the deceased was 23 years at the time of accident. She was a Team Leader in M/s. Net Star BPO Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai, and was earning Rs.13,000/-per month. P.W.2, an official from the said Company produced the salary certificate of the deceased. Ex.P7 is the Bank Statement in which the salary of the deceased was credited which shows that she was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs.13,000/-per month at the time of accident. Though a sum of Rs.3,800/- is shown as incentive, it is seen that the payment of incentive depends upon the performance of the employee and it may vary from time to time. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has taken salary of the deceased as Rs.13,000/-. However, the Tribunal has not added any amount for future prospects. The deceased was an unmarried girl, aged about 23 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of her monthly salary and determined the loss of earning to the family at Rs.8,667/-. The Tribunal, then applied the multiplier of 13 and declared that the claimants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.13,52,052/-as loss to the dependants and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,57,052/-. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC) and argued that the victim being aged 23 years, the multiplier 18 should have been applied. But the Tribunal committed a serious error by applying the multiplier of 13 which was against the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said decision. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ Transport Corporation relying upon the same decision contended that the deceased being an unmarried girl, a deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses ought to have been made and the Tribunal committed serious error by deducting 1/3rd only which was against the laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. However, he supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that it has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the mother of the deceased. 15. However, he supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that it has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the mother of the deceased. 15. The question relating to deduction of personal and living expenses and selection of multiplier came for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC) and the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines which includes the case of a bachelor who is survived by parents and also for deducting appropriate sum towards personal and living expenses. 16. Admittedly, the claimants are the dependants to the deceased. She died as an unmarried girl and the deduction of 50% has to be made as personal and living expenses as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC). However, as she died at the age of 23 years, 50% has to be added for future prospects as per the evidence placed on record indicated that she was getting incentives periodically. Thus, adding 50% towards future prospects, her total monthly income is taken as Rs.19,500/- and after deducting 50% towards her personal expenses, the contribution to the family is taken as Rs.9,750/-. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 13 on the basis of the age of the parents. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in Amirt Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012 (2) TN MAC 321 (SC)) has held as follows: “The selection of Multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation.” 17. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for respondent/Transport Corporation that the deceased was a female and she would have got married after a couple of years and thus, there was no loss of dependent to the appellants. 18. We are unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/Transport Corporation. The contention shows gender bias on the part of the Transport Corporation and in today's society daughters' are taking as much care of their parents as the sons. 18. We are unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/Transport Corporation. The contention shows gender bias on the part of the Transport Corporation and in today's society daughters' are taking as much care of their parents as the sons. There is no intelligible bias to deny compensation to the parents in respect of the death of a daughter. 19. As per Sarla Verma's case, as the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident and her mother was 44 years, the proper multiplier would be 14. The Tribunal, taking into consideration, the age of the deceased has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 and the proper multiplier is 14. By applying the said multiplier, the amount will come to Rs.16,38,000/-(1,17,000(9750 x12) x 14). All the three claimants together are entitled to get Rs.50,000/-towards loss of love and affection of their daughter and sister respectively. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013(3) CTC 883(SC)), the Supreme Court has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Considering the same, this Court awards a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the total enhanced compensation comes to Rs.17,13,000/- and the claimants are entitled to get the said compensation instead of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 19. The compensation amount awarded by Tribunal for the loss of pecuniary benefits is Rs.13,52,052/-and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.13,57,052/- is enhanced to Rs.17,13,000/- as under: Sl. No. Compensation under various heads Award amount 1 Loss of pecuniary benefits Rs. 16,38,000/- 2 Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection to all claimants Rs. 50,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 17,13,000/- The claimants would also be entitled to 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. 20. The award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced to the extent as stated above. The father of the deceased/1st claimant is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-, the mother of the deceased/2nd claimant is entitled to Rs.9,00,000/- and the sister of the deceased/3rd claimant is entitled to Rs.3,13,000/-. 21. In the result, The judgment of the Chief Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in M.C.O.P. No. 4647 of 2007 dated 24.01.2012, is modified and C.M.A. No.107/2013 is partly allowed. 21. In the result, The judgment of the Chief Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, in M.C.O.P. No. 4647 of 2007 dated 24.01.2012, is modified and C.M.A. No.107/2013 is partly allowed. The compensation amount payable to the Claimants is enhanced from Rs.13,57,052/-to Rs.17,13,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.17,13,000/-shall be payable by the Transport Corporation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of Petition. The Transport Corporation has to deposit the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest less the amount already deposited before the Tribunal to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 4647 of 2007 on the file of Chief Small Causes Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st claimant is entitled to withdraw Rs.5,00,000/-; the 2nd claimant is entitled to withdraw Rs.9,00,000/- and the 3rd claimant is entitled to withdraw Rs.3,13,000/-lying to the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 4647 of 2007 along with accrued interest thereon, on the claimants filing necessary Application before the Tribunal. Consequently, C.M.A. No. 1136 of 2014 filed by the Transport Corporation stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in these Appeals.