Judgment This appeal filed by the claimants being the parents of one late Subhajit Biswas, who was killed in a motor vehicle accident, is against the judgment and award dated 30th June, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burdwan in a claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being MAC Case No.230 of 2004. The award has been challenged by the appellant claimants on the ground that the compensation granted was inadequate. By the judgment and award under appeal, the claimants have been awarded total compensation of Rs.1,60,500/-, including Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estates. The accident took place on 27th February, 2004. It is alleged that the victim was traveling by motor cycle with his friends when he was hit by the mini bus bearing the number WB39/0563, of which the respondent no.2 is the owner. The said vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the respondent no.1, hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent insurer’. The claimants, as parents, filed the claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. It was claimed that the victim was the supervisor in a construction firm with a monthly income of Rs.3300/-. The victim was allegedly only 25 years of age at the time of the accident. In the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the claimants relied upon a certificate issued by the proprietor of the construction firm in which the victim worked indicating that he earned salary of Rs.3300/- per month. Moreover, evidence was also adduced by another employee of the same concern. The learned Tribunal did not, however, accept the evidence of the coemployee and also did not accept the certificate indicating that the victim worked as site supervisor at a monthly salry of Rs.3300/-. The evidence of the coemployee was not believed since no salary register was forthcoming. Of course, the learned Tribunal itself observed as follows: “It, however, cannot be denied that the victim had an income and he used to maintain himself and his parents. Having regard to the fact that an employee of a private concern now-a-days has atleast an income of Rs.1,500/- per month. Of course, the learned Tribunal itself observed as follows: “It, however, cannot be denied that the victim had an income and he used to maintain himself and his parents. Having regard to the fact that an employee of a private concern now-a-days has atleast an income of Rs.1,500/- per month. It can be safely assumed that the victim had an income of not less than Rs.1500/-per month.” Mere inability of a co-employee to produce the salary register cannot and does not lead to the conclusion that the certificate issued by the proprietor was false and fabricated and the oral evidence of a different co-employee was unacceptable. Significantly, the learned Tribunal did not call for the register, which the learned Tribunal could have done. This is not a case where the register was not produced in spite of directions to do so. In any case, even assuming that no salary register was maintained, an employee or his heirs cannot suffer for such non-maintenance of salary register. The victim, who was a supervisor, was in no way responsible for maintenance of records. The respondents did not adduce any evidence to show that the oral evidence of the co-employee or the certificate issued by the employer was incorrect. The victim was not an income-tax payee. His income was far below the taxable level. All that the claimants, as dependents of the victim, could possibly do, was to produce a certificate of the employer which the claimants could have done and such certificate has been produced. In our considered view, the learned Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the contention of the claimants that the victim earned Rs.3300/- per month. May be the income figure could have been disbelieved, had the same been excessively high. However, the claim of earning Rs.3300/- is, in our view, a modest claim in view of the evidence that he worked as a supervisor in a construction firm. We cannot also ignore the tremendous inflation that has taken place in the last decade and particularly, the last few years. Had the victim been alive, he would at least have earned thirty per cent more, as claimed by Mr. Banik, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant claimants. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Had the victim been alive, he would at least have earned thirty per cent more, as claimed by Mr. Banik, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant claimants. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC), Savita Vs. Bindar Singh & Ors., reported in 2014 ACJ 1261 (SC), we are inclined to add thirty per cent of the income claimed, that is, Rs.990/- (30% of Rs.3300/-). We, thus, deem it appropriate to compute compensation by applying the multiplier, applicable to the age group to which the victim belonged, that is, multiplier “17” and deducting therefrom one-third towards the personal expenses of the victim. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent insurer, submitted that the victim being a bachelor, fifty per cent of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. However, the rule of deduction of fifty per cent in the case of a bachelor is not an absolute rule and certainly, not in the case of persons belonging to the lower income group with aged dependent parents. The schedule provides for deduction of one-third towards personal expenses and we, accordingly, deduct one-third towards personal expenses. Counsel further submits that the multiplier applicable to the average age of the surviving parents should be taken into account and not the age of the victim, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr., reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 , relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in FMA No.391 of 2009 (Smt. Pushpa Maity & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.). However, in view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in P. S. Somanathan & Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officer & Anr., reported in (2011) ACC 659 (SC), where the Supreme Court categorically held that in an application for claim under Section 163A, it is the age of the victim which is relevant and the multiplier is to be applied as per the age of the victim and not as per the age of the surviving claimants, we deem it appropriate to apply the multiplier “17”. We, thus, hold that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation as per the following calculation. We, thus, hold that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation as per the following calculation. The monthly income of the victim is Rs.3300/-. Adding future prospects at the rate of thirty per cent, the monthly income comes to Rs.4290/-[Rs.3300/- + Rs.990/-(30% of Rs.3300/-)]. The annul income is to be obtained by multiplying the aforesaid amount by ‘12’, which works out to Rs.51,480/-, from which one-third (i.e. Rs.51,480÷3=Rs.17,160/-) is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the victim. The total works out to Rs.34,320/- (Rs.51,480/- - Rs.17,160/-). The multiplier applicable to the age group of the victim, is “17”. The total works out to Rs.5,83,440/- (Rs.34320/- X 17). In addition to the aforesaid amount, Rs.2,000/- is statutorily required to be added towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estates. The total takes us to Rs.5,87,940/-. The claimants shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till full liquidation of the amount awarded in terms of this judgment and order calculated as per reducing balance, if applicable. Needless to mention that the respondent insurer shall be entitled to credit for any payments already made. The award under appeal is modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.