JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Appellants-claimants have called in question the judgment and award, dated 04.12.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla , H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No. 102S/ 2 of 2005/2004, titled as Shri Inder Singh and another versus Smt. Sunita Nagraik and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,93,000/with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The insurer and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellants-claimants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is inadequate? 5. I have gone through the claim petition, record and the impugned judgment and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in an error while making calculations and the award. 6. The amount awarded by the Tribunal, in terms of the impugned award, is inadequate for the following reasons: 7. The age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident, which is not in dispute. The multiplier of 16' was to be applied keeping in view the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error while applying the multiplier of 12'. 8. The deceased was a government employee, had drawn his last salary to the tune of Rs. 7,447/in terms of his last pay certificate, Ext. PW2/ B, which can be rounded off to Rs. 7,500/. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted two third towards his personal expenses. 8. The deceased was a government employee, had drawn his last salary to the tune of Rs. 7,447/in terms of his last pay certificate, Ext. PW2/ B, which can be rounded off to Rs. 7,500/. The Tribunal has wrongly deducted two third towards his personal expenses. 50% was to be deducted while keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra). 9. In view of the above, it is held that the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, have lost source of income/dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,750/per month, i.e. Rs. 3,750/x 12 = Rs. 45,000/per annum. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,000/x 16 = Rs. 7,20,000/. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs. 10,000/under the head 'loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'funeral charges' and Rs. 10,000/under the head 'loss of estate' and Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'transportation charges'. 10. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/+ Rs. 10,000/+ Rs. 10,000/+ Rs. 10,000/+ Rs. 10,000/= Rs. 7,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its finalization. 11. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 12. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within six weeks from today. On deposition of the same, the entire awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.