JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. Both these appeals are the outcome of award, dated 28th February, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.1-S/2 of 2007, titled Sanjokta Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,04,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9%, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants, and the owner-HRTC was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The claimants have questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No.317 of 2008 on the ground of adequacy of compensation, while the owner-HRTC has questioned the same by filing FAO No.354 of 2008 on the ground that the impugned award is excessive. 3. Therefore, the question needs to be answered in these appeals is – Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate? 4. After going through the impugned award and the record, I am of the view that the impugned award is inadequate for the following reasons. 5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the future earning prospects of the deceased, worked out the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. However, in my opinion, the Tribunal has fallen in error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, after making deductions towards his personal expenses and taking into account the fact that in near future he was to be married. 6. In today's scenario, even an unskilled labourer is earning not less than Rs.6,000/- per month. However, in the case of the deceased, he was a trained Electrician as has been proved on record. Therefore, it can safely be held that at the time of his death, he would have been earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 7. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. 8. Coming to the multiplier, the Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the parents, has applied the multiplier of 15 for the first year and of 14 for the remaining period. 9. The Apex Court in its latest decision in Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, JT 2015(5) SC 1, has held that while applying the multiplier, only the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 12 and 14 of the said decision hereunder: ?12. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: ?36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.? xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 14. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.? xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 14. The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income as Rs.12,000.00 by the High Court.? 10. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 28 years. Therefore, applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain's case (supra), I am of the opinion that multiplier of 13 is appropriate in the present case. 11. Accordingly, the claimants are awarded a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 13) under the head loss of the source of dependency. 12. In addition to this, the Claimants are also held entitled to Rs.30,000/-, i.e. Rs.10,000/- each under the heads =loss of love and affection', loss of estate' and =funeral expenses'. 13. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4,98,000/- (Rs.4,68,000 + Rs.30,000), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The owner-HRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award and after proper identification. 15. FAO No.354 of 2008 filed by the HRTC is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants i.e. FAO No.317 of 2008 is allowed, as indicated above. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of connected appeal.