JUDGMENT : P. DEVADASS, J. 1. As this C.M.A involves a narrow point and the learned counsel for the appellant also sharply present his submission, we will dispose of this C.M.A today itself. 2. The State Transport Corporation is the appellant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. This matter relates to a fatal accident. Admittedly, the deceased died a bachelor at the age of 27 years. Not even lived a family life. The respondents/claimants are stated to be his dependants. Though huge monthly income has been stated, in view of the paucity of evidence the Tribunal had taken only Rs. 6,000/- p.m. 5. The accident was in the year 2012. Thus such income does not appears to be abnormal. 6. But the controversy exposed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier ''18'' based on the age of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it should have been based on the age of the mother of the deceased. 7. As the mother was 50 years old and his father was 60 years old, there is a difference of ten years between his parents. This is not an uncommon event in our State. For the purpose of multiplier, what should be the age required to be taken in case of bachelor engaged the attention of the Court for a long time. 8. There were zig-zag trends in this area. At one stage, it was said that the age of the mother should be taken. At one stage, average age of the parents of the deceased should be preferred. Then it is the view that the age of the deceased should be taken. 9. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the deceased died a bachelor and his mother was an advanced age, there is arguable points to fix the multiplier based on the age of the mother. But if the deceased died at a very young age and the mother is also not in advanced age, as in the instant case, then the age of the deceased could be preferred. Then only the dependants would get a fair, reasonable and just compensation. 10. But if the deceased died at a very young age and the mother is also not in advanced age, as in the instant case, then the age of the deceased could be preferred. Then only the dependants would get a fair, reasonable and just compensation. 10. In Puttamma v. Narayana Reddy and another ( 2013(15) SCC 45 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that there is difference in determining compensation for road accident victims under the English law and under India law. Under the English Law while fixing compensation the English Judges took the view that it is to restore the loss occasioned to the dependants of the deceased because of his demise, whereas when compensation was determined under our Motor Vehicles Act, the outlook of the Indian Judges is entirely different. 11. It is relevant here to extract the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Puttamma's case (supra): ''14. In 1988, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. By bringing in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it was reiterated that the amount of compensation payable would be which appeared to be just. Section 168 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: 168. In 1988, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. By bringing in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it was reiterated that the amount of compensation payable would be which appeared to be just. Section 168 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act reads as under: 168. Award of the Claims Tribunal.-(1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry into the claims or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under Section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim(whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X.'' (emphasis supplied). 15. Thus, according to the English law compensation/damages were payable according to the proportionate loss whereas in India compensation/damages were payable according to the proportionate loss whereas in India compensation which appears to the Tribunal to be just is payable. The approach of the courts according to the English law and according to the Indian law have to be distinct and separate. The Indian law recognises just compensation whereas the English law required compensation proportionate to the loss suffered. English courts have been calculating loss of money as a bargain as to how much monetary loss has been caused to the claimant, as a result of the death of the bread earner/deceased. The English law being different, English judges were having a different approach towards the grant of compensation to the deceased's family. 16. Here in India, we have different culture. The English law being different, English judges were having a different approach towards the grant of compensation to the deceased's family. 16. Here in India, we have different culture. Here, every parent thinks that it is his moral and legal duty to give fullest education to his children. Parents think that marriage of their children and grand-children is their responsibility. Here, in India, the concept of culture and family life in England and in other foreign countries. Here parents not only educate the children but spend huge amounts or at least sufficient amounts on the marriages of their children, on their education, for their housing needs and in a majority of cases in return, they are looked after in their old age. Most of the people work even after their retirement to support their children. The longevity of life in India has increased at least up to 69 years; in many cases, people live longer than that. The salaries and cost of things increase rapidly. At a glance, between every 9-10 years they double.'' 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunals are expected to liberally consider the human elements involved because they are placed in a situation to assess the damages for loss of human lives. 13. Now in this case, a 27 years old bachelor died because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased happened to be bread-winner of the family, whose mother was 50 yeas old. All the supports from her 27 year old son has been snatched away by the negligent act of the driver of the vehicle. In such circumstances, if we take the age of the mother, it would not reflect just compensation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal took the age of the deceased and accordingly chose the multiplier. In my considered view this is not incorrect. In other aspects, the Tribunal had not awarded any excessive compensation. 14. In the circumstances, the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O. P.No.6 of 2013, dated 19.2.2014 is upheld. The appellant shall deposit the entire award amount within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment less amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants shall be paid their respective portion of the amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. 15. The appellant shall deposit the entire award amount within two months from the date receipt of a copy of this judgment less amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants shall be paid their respective portion of the amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.