JUDGMENT : K. KANNAN, J. CM No. 18209-CI of 2015 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Annexure P-1 is taken on record. FAO No. 4866 of 2009 1. The appeal is for enhancement of claim for compensation for death of a male, aged 18 years, who was a student studying B. Tech course. The Tribunal assessed a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The claimant was the father. 2. The scales of compensation have gone up very high and what was originally thought of to be conventional sums have become larger amounts than the extent of dependency that is normally assessed. Theory of multiplier itself has undergone a whole change. A multiplier which is to represent the number of years' purchase to make possible for a yield as a corpus that will secure a return of investment in a stable economy has now undergone a change in understanding that even apart from what a claimant could obtain by way of return during his lifetime which would be for the number of years that he would be alive to receive, it has been authoritatively held that it is the age of the deceased which will prevail to determine the multiplier. All these dispensations are only to secure a homogeneous approach and remove the element of arbitrariness. At a more philosophical level, it could be understood that life is precious and priceless and it will be difficult to assess even a monetary compensation. The court that determines compensation accommodates conflicting interests and tries to secure some reparation which in the very scheme of things could be only monetary compensation and not words of sympathy. The idea is that money can purchase peace, if it ever happens. 3. I take stock of the existing trends and provide for compensation and tabulate the various heads as under. In so doing, I am applying the principle laid down in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another- 2015 (2) SCC 180 and if a prospect of income for a MBBS student could be Rs. 25,000/-, I cannot believe for a B.Tech. Student it could be anything less than Rs. 10,000/-. I will, therefore, take the average income at Rs. 25,000/-, I cannot believe for a B.Tech. Student it could be anything less than Rs. 10,000/-. I will, therefore, take the average income at Rs. 10,000/- and apply a multiplier of 18 as contemplated in the judgment in Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, (2015) 6 SCC 347 that it is the age of the deceased that will be relevant and not the age of the parent which will be supported. There is a component of love and affection for the parent as held in Rajesh v. Rajbir, 2013 (9) SCC 54 and assessed the compensation as under :- Age 18 Occupation B.Tech. student Claimants Father Heads of claim Tribunal High Court Sr. No. Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) 1. Income Rs. 10,000 2. Add, % of increase 30%/50% 3. Deduction 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, Rs. 5,000 4. Multiplicand Rs. 60,000 5. Multiplier Rs. 18 6. Loss of dependence Rs. 10,80,000 7. Medical expenses 8. Loss of consortium 9. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000 10. Loss to estate Rs. 10,000 11. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000 Total Rs. 1,60,000 Rs. 12,15,000 There shall be an award of Rs. 12,15,000/- 4. The additional amount of compensation over what was already awarded by the Tribunal will attract interest at 9% as held in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015(4) SCC 237 which will be payable from the date of petition till date of payment. 5. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.