JUDGMENT : By consent of the parties the appeal is treated as on day’s list and is taken up for hearing. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30th August, 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C.C. no. 93 of 2011 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company relying on the grounds of the memorandum of appeal submits that the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased, a bachelor and by awarding a sum of Rs. 4,44,500/- as compensation against his client, failed to take into consideration the age of the parents. Submission is compensation should have been assessed considering the age of the parents of the deceased and not the deceased herself. It is submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that at the time of the accident, the mother of the deceased was 56 years old. However, the learned Judge while calculating the quantum of compensation, erroneously applied the multiplier of 18 considering the age of the deceased. According to him, considering the age of the mother, multiplier of 8 should have been applied. Further, in the absence of documentary evidence the learned Judge erred in accepting the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month, which notionally should have been assessed at Rs. 3,000/-per month. 4. Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the issue, whether the age of deceased or the age of the parents should be the factor in deciding the multiplier is well settled by various judgments of this Court, including the judgments in Renuka Singh vs. Jagdish Pandey: 2013 (2) T.A.C. 451 (Cal), Chhaya Sarkar vs. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.: 2013 (4) T.A.C. 46 (Cal) and the National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Mohini Kamila: 2014 (2) T.A.C. 932 (Cal), dealing with cases relating to bachelor. Reliance has also been placed on two unreported judgments of this Court in FMA 49 of 2014 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Buro Mahara) delivered on 13th March, 2015 and in FMA 1714 of 2013 with COT 1 of 2015 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sk. Manowar Hossain & Ors.) delivered on 18th March, 2015. 5. Mr. Reliance has also been placed on two unreported judgments of this Court in FMA 49 of 2014 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Buro Mahara) delivered on 13th March, 2015 and in FMA 1714 of 2013 with COT 1 of 2015 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sk. Manowar Hossain & Ors.) delivered on 18th March, 2015. 5. Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants submits that in view of the judgements in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 2 TAC 677 (SC), Amit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. : (2012) 11 SCC 738 , Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs Madan Mohan & Anr. : 2013 (2) T.A.C. 369 (SC), wherein the deceased was bachelor and in M. Mansoor & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.: 2013 (4) T.A.C. 832 (SC), considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 18 may be applied. 6. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the judgment and award under challenge. 7. Since it appears that though the deceased was engaged in panchayat as a day labourer having a job card, as no job card was filed, in our view, the learned Tribunal should have assessed the monthly income notionally at Rs. 3000/-. Accordingly, the annual income is assessed at Rs.3000/- x 12 = Rs. 36,000/-. Since the deceased was a spinster, half of the total income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deduction, it is Rs.18,000/-. 8. The question is whether the age of the parents of the deceased should be considered for the purpose of calculating the compensation. There is no dispute that the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) has been dealt with in the subsequent cases cited by the learned advocate for the respondents. In Reshma Kumari (supra), particularly in paragraph 39 thereof, it was held that the standard fixed by the Court in Sarla Verma must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure is made out. So far as the judgments in Renuka Singh (supra), Chhaya Sarkar (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohini Kamila (supra) are concerned we find that those are with regard to the death of a bachelor/spinster. So far as the judgments in Renuka Singh (supra), Chhaya Sarkar (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohini Kamila (supra) are concerned we find that those are with regard to the death of a bachelor/spinster. Since we find that from the judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court that the age of the parents should be taken into consideration, we do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the said point and thus we follow the law laid down in paragraph 15 in Sarla Verma (supra). 9. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra), considering the age of the mother, we are of the view that the multiplier of 9 should be applied. Thus, the loss of dependency is Rs. 18,000/- X 9 = Rs. 1,62,000/-. 10. So far as the general damage is concerned, we do not disturb the finding of the learned Tribunal by granting Rs. 10,000/- as funeral and ritual expenses and Rs. 2,500/- as loss of estate. Therefore, the total compensation is Rs. 1,62,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 2,500/- = Rs. 1,74,500/-. The respondents/claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,74,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of deposit. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. 11. Since the entire amount of Rs. 4,44,500/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, has been deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court, the learned Registrar General is directed to allow the claimants to withdraw the sum of Rs. 1,74,500/- along with interest on proper verification and receipt. 12. It is also made clear that the balance amount shall be refunded to the Insurance Company within four weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the certified copy of this order. 13. The appeal and the applications, being CAN 6514 of 2014 and CAN 12505 of 2013, are disposed of. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Let the lower court records, if brought, to this Court, be sent down forthwith. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties on priority basis.