JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Though present appeal is notified on board today for orders, as the dispute in the appeal is in a very narrow compass, in the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and as the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have declared that record and proceedings of the case is not required, present appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 22/04/2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to "the Tribunal" for brevity) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1131 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to "the claim petition" for brevity) by which, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,88,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation to the original claimants - parents of the deceased, towards compensation for the death of deceased - Prafulbhai Navratanmal Mehta, the appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 3. Facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: 3.1 In a vehicular accident which took place on 16/10/2007 at about 3:00 p.m., deceased Prafulbhai Navratanmal Mehta, who was going on his Activa bearing registration No. GJ1ES8569, met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. GJ7Y5014. Consequently, the deceased fell on the road and sustained serious injuries on head and on various parts of the body and was admitted in L. G. Hospital for emergency treatment where he was declared dead due to haemorrhage. Therefore, the original claimants - parents of the deceased filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. 4. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the accident took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of the owner of the truck. That at the relevant time, the deceased was aged 20 years and was doing business in the share market and was earning Rs.20,000/- per mensem. 4.1 That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held the driver and the owner of the truck sole negligent for the accident due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and eventually, succumbed to the injuries. 4.1 That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held the driver and the owner of the truck sole negligent for the accident due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and eventually, succumbed to the injuries. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per mensem and adding further 50% towards future rise in the income, the learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per mensem and after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 16, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,68,000/- towards future economic loss. Adding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,88,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased, giving rise to the present appeal. 5. Shri Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that as the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants were parents, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/2 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier considering the age of the deceased and not considering the age of the parents of the deceased - original claimants. Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company, has heavily relied upon following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his above submission that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future economic loss by applying the multiplier considering the age of the parents of the deceased - original claimants and not the age of the deceased: "(1) C.K.Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, reported in AIR 1970 SC 376 ; (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Swaranlata Das, reported in 1993 Suppl (2) SCC 743; (3) H. S. Ahammed Hussain & Anr. v. Irfan Ahammed & Anr., reported in (2002) 6 SCC 52 ; (4) Mohd. Ameeruddin & Anr. Ltd. v. M/s. Swaranlata Das, reported in 1993 Suppl (2) SCC 743; (3) H. S. Ahammed Hussain & Anr. v. Irfan Ahammed & Anr., reported in (2002) 6 SCC 52 ; (4) Mohd. Ameeruddin & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 304 ; (5) National Insurance Company Limited v. Shyam Singh And Others, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 65 ; (6) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 2649 ; (7) Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors., reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 ; (8) General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 ." 5.1 Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and modify the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal accordingly. 6. Shri Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing for the opponents original claimants, has tried to oppose the present appeal and has submitted that as such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in awarding the future economic loss considering the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per mensem and considering dependency at Rs.6,000/- per mensem. It is submitted that as the deceased, at the relevant time, was aged 20 years, even considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal was required to apply the multiplier of 18 while awarding the future economic loss instead of multiplier of 16, as applied by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that as the deceased, at the relevant time, was aged 20 years, even considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal was required to apply the multiplier of 18 while awarding the future economic loss instead of multiplier of 16, as applied by the learned Tribunal. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, reported in (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 738 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Legal Heirs and Representatives of deceased Panchshil Parashar and 3, in First Appeal No. 3264 of 2010 dated 17/06/2014 as well as other decisions of Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 487 of 2003 dated 13/06/2014 and First Appeal No. 3032 of 2014 dated 08/10/2014 and the First Appeal No. 1122 of 2006 with First Appeal No. 164 of 2006 dated 07/04/2014, it is vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the future economic loss by applying multiplier considering the age of the deceased and not the age of the claimants - parents of the deceased. However, the learned advocate appearing for the opponents - original claimants is not in a position and is also not disputing that even as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) when the deceased was a bachelor and the original claimants were the parents, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% / 1/2 of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, he has requested to pass the appropriate orders considering the aforesaid. 7. Heard, the learned advocates appearing for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and award rendered by the learned Tribunal as well as the documentary evidence forthcoming on record. By impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,68,000/- under the head of future economic loss to the original claimants, who are the parents of the deceased. By impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,68,000/- under the head of future economic loss to the original claimants, who are the parents of the deceased. While awarding the aforesaid amount, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per mensem and thereafter, adding 50% towards future rise in the income, prospective income has been considered at Rs.6,000/- per mensem and after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 16, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,68,000/- towards future economic loss. However, it is required to be noted that as the deceased was a bachelor and claimants were the parents, considering the decision of Sarla Verma (supra), the learned Tribunal was required to deduct ½/ 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of ?rd as deducted by the learned Tribunal. Even, considering the age of the deceased viz. 20 years at the time of the accident, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 18 was required to be applied. 7.1 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellant insurance company that while awarding future economic loss and applying the multiplier, the age of the claimants - parents, is required to be considered and not the age of the deceased, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) and the decisions of Division Bench this Court in aforesaid First Appeals referred to by the learned advocate appearing for the opponents, the said contention cannot be accepted. In the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra), in para 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: "The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation." In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment and order passed by the High Court applying multiplier of 17 considering the age of the deceased at the time of death - 26 years. Even, the Division Bench of this Court, in aforesaid First Appeals, has categorically held after considering the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) as well as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) that while awarding future economic loss and applying multiplier, the age of the deceased is required to be considered and not the age of the parents is required to be considered. 7.2 The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per mensem at the time of the accident and adding 50% of the same towards future rise in the income, the prospective income of the deceased would come to Rs.6,000/- per mensem and deducting ½/ 50% of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 18, the claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- towards future economic loss. Adding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,68,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased instead of Rs.7,88,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 8. In view of the above and the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds in part and the impugned judgment and award is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,68,000/- (instead of Rs.7,88,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal), together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Consequently, any amount deposited by the appellant insurance company in excess with accrued proportionate interest, shall be refunded to the appellant from the amount lying in the fixed deposit, lying with the learned Tribunal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Order accordingly.