ORDER The parents, who lost their 13 year old son due to electrocution are in appeal, aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘Adalat’), Belgaum. 2. Appellants had filed O.P. No. 29/2009, under Section 22(C)(I) of Legal Service Authorities Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of their son Master Vinayak, due to electrocution. 3. The Adalat held that the petitioners son died on 16.09.2008, due to electrocution and awarded compensation, under the head, ‘loss of dependency’ at Rs.1,80,000/- and towards ‘Funeral Expenses’ Rs.10,000/-, i.e., in all, Rs.1,90,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. 4. Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned advocate for the petitioners argued that the award of compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-, for the death of a 13 year old boy, due to electrocution is too low and meager. He relied upon the decisions in M.S. Grewal and Another vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 151 , Lata Wadhwa and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and Others, 2013 (5) CTC 212 and Mallikarjuna S/o Hanumanthappa and Others vs. Basheer Baig and Another, passed in MFA No. 101096/2014, in support of the claim that the petitioners are entitled to award of enhanced compensation of atleast Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Smt. Sharmila M. Patil, learned advocate for the respondents, on the other hand supported the impugned award and sought dismissal of the appeal. 6. Respondents have not questioned the subject award, fastening them with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- with interest. In the circumstances, only point for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation? 7. In the instant case, the Adalat with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners to compensation has held as follows: “10. Coming to the question of the amount of compensation we are to note that the boy was of about 13 years. It is stated that he was studying in a school. Ex.P13 is the School Leaving Certificate. The date of birth of the boy is mentioned as 20th May 1996. That supports the age of 13 years. Coming to the question of the amount of compensation we are to note that the boy was of about 13 years. It is stated that he was studying in a school. Ex.P13 is the School Leaving Certificate. The date of birth of the boy is mentioned as 20th May 1996. That supports the age of 13 years. In case of death of minor who are not getting income the Apex Court and the High Court of Karnataka have awarded the compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- as can be seen from the decisions reported in 2008 ACJ 1749 of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and 2007 ACJ 160 of Supreme Court of India. 11. The parents might have spent Rs.10,000/- for carrying the boy to the hospital and for funeral expenses. Thus the Petitioners are entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- which is held to be just and reasonable.” 8. In M.S. Grewal case (supra), the accident had occurred on 28.05.1995 and the Apex Court awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the parents of the children, who were students of IV, V and VI classes. 9. In Kishan Gopal (supra), notional income was taken at Rs.30,000/- and taking the age of the mother, who was about 36 years old, at the time of accident, the multiplier of 15 was applied to the multiplicand and by adding Rs.50,000/- under the conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and last rites, the compensation payable was determined. 10. Multiplier method is being applied in the claim cases arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , Apex Court has held that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established and must be followed. The multiplier method involves capitalization of the loss of annual dependency by an appropriate multiplier. In the instant case, the Adalat ought to have, firstly, assessed the lost dependency and secondly, the sum payable under the conventional heads. 11. With regard to deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased, in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Apex Court has held as follows: “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. 11. With regard to deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased, in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Apex Court has held as follows: “31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.” 12. In the instant case, at the time of electrocution, the deceased was 13 years old. He being a student, the income should be reckoned on notional basis at Rs.30,000/- per annum i.e., by keeping in view the ratio of decision in Kishan Gopal (supra). 50% should be deducted towards the personal expenses. Age of the 2nd claimant-mother, being higher than that of the deceased, her age should be taken into account for the capitalization of the lost dependency. The choice of multiplier is with regard to the age of the younger parent – mother. Thus, the loss of dependency is Rs.1,250 x 12 x 16 = Rs.2,40,000/-. Under the conventional heads, there can be addition of Rs.1,00,000/-. The choice of multiplier is with regard to the age of the younger parent – mother. Thus, the loss of dependency is Rs.1,250 x 12 x 16 = Rs.2,40,000/-. Under the conventional heads, there can be addition of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, the just and reasonable compensation payable by respondents is Rs.3,40,000/-. 13. Keeping in view the undisputed factual background, the Adalat has committed error in assessing the loss and in the matter of awarding just and reasonable compensation by applying the settled principles, as applied in the claim cases arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. Since there is error committed in arriving at the lost dependency and also in the matter of the sum payable under the conventional heads, the impugned award being unjust, calls for modification. In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned award is modified. The petitioners shall be paid by the respondents, the compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of O.P. No. 29/2009, till the date of payment. Two months time is allowed for deposit. Out of the enhanced compensation, the Adalat shall invest Rs.1,00,000/-, in the name of Smt. Bharati W/o Somashekhar Badiger claimant No.2, for a period of 10 years, in a Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank, of her choice, with provision for withdrawal of interest periodically. No costs.