ORDER : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This appeal is of the year 2009. 2. On the death of 24 years old bachelor, the parents and the grand-parents are the claimants. 3. The accident in this case happened on 8th December, 2004 at Gurgaon and the deceased Kishore Sharma died. He was a trainee in HCL - a computer based company and was undergoing training on stipend @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. He had to get Rs.12,000/- in the next year which is not disputed. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, father of the deceased was examined as witness. Co-employee was also examined as witness to speak about the income of the deceased. The nature of accident and liability of the Insurance Company to compensate is not in issue before this Court. The only point raised by the appellant is enhancement of compensation stating that just compensation has not been granted. 5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the income fixed by the Tribunal is justified. This has to be seen in light of the observation of the Tribunal in answer to issue No. 2 and 7 which reads as follows: "Issues No. 2 and 7 Issues No. 2 and 7 are interlinked and coextensive. The finding of one issue will affect the finding of other issues as such both these issues are taken up together to return findings. Now the question arises as to what amount of compensation petitioner is entitled to and from whom? PW Gourav Arora has narrated that they were engaged on temporarily basis in the HCL for undergoing training @ Rs. 8,000/- as scholarship. A letter annexure 'A' mark-G dated 28.04.07 on court file revealed, "the organization does not assure you of any employment based on your merit and on availability of vacancy at the end of your training period". This clause of engagement letter of deceased clearly depicts that his job was not permanent and stipend being received cannot be treated as income of the deceased. Moreso he was under training. But it is a fact that after training deceased may get job in a Govt. or private sector. Keeping in view all these factors the minimum income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 4,500/- PM for assessing compensation. Moreso he was under training. But it is a fact that after training deceased may get job in a Govt. or private sector. Keeping in view all these factors the minimum income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 4,500/- PM for assessing compensation. As per the claim petition, petitioner aged 24 years at the time of accident was undergoing training as a "Graduate Trainee" for a period of 2 years. Deceased was also a bachelor at the time of accident and as per the law of country for computing compensation in case of a bachelor person the age of eldest member in the family is taken into consideration. Parents of the deceased at the time of accident were of 47 and 45 years respectively and as per 2nd Schedule to M.V. Act the covered under the age group of a person between the age of 45 to 50 years for which a multiplier of 13 is prescribed. Deceased would have spent some amount on his personal expenses for which 1/3 is to be deducted leaving behind an amount of Rs. 2,000/- PM and Rs. 36,000/- PA as loss of dependency of the petitioners. Due to lump sum payment of compensation and taking into consideration uncertainties of life the multiplier can be slashed down and in my opinion 11 is the appropriate multiplier for assessing compensation. When Rs. 36,000/- multiplied by 11 shall bring an amount of Rs. 3,96,000/- as loss of dependency and it is accordingly awarded in favour of petitioners. Rs. 15,000/- are awarded as funeral expenses." 6. It has been held by the Tribunal that engagement of the deceased on temporary basis in HCL at Rs. 8000/- per month is not in dispute and it is supported by documents. Since the letter says that it does not assure a regular employment, the Tribunal held that if the deceased may get a job with Government or Private Sector, minimum income of the deceased was to be taken at Rs. 4500/- per month and therefore the said amount is taken as a benchmark for granting the compensation after deduction of certain amounts of personal expenses of the deceased. This appears to be totally inappropriate because the income as on the date of death should have been taken a benchmark. The Tribunal was not justified in reducing the income on notion that income in Government sector should be at Rs. This appears to be totally inappropriate because the income as on the date of death should have been taken a benchmark. The Tribunal was not justified in reducing the income on notion that income in Government sector should be at Rs. 4500/- per month. This is moreso on the fact that the employment in computer oriented service has been in the range of Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 12000/- for a trainee and more in the case of regular employment. The Tribunal cannot reduce the income of the deceased on a hypothetical basis when there is a real figure in terms of Annexure-A (mark-G) dated 28.04.2007 as an evidence in support of the income of the deceased. Furthermore, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, future prospects should have been considered. 7. Keeping that in mind, the award of the Tribunal in determining the pecuniary loss to the dependent, this Court holds that it has been erroneously calculated and accordingly the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 8000/- per month on which one-half should be reduced for the purpose of personal expenses of the deceased leaving the pecuniary benefits to the dependents as Rs. 4000 x 12 = Rs. 48000/- per annum. Since the deceased was of 24 years of age, considering the multiplier of 13, the total pecuniary loss will be Rs. 6,24,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs. 15000/- towards funeral expenses. No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the parents. Hence parents of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 25000/- each for loss of love and affection, in all Rs. 50,000/-. The grand-mother of the deceased as stated by counsel for the appellant has died. However, the grand-father of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 15000/- for loss of love and affection. The award stands enhanced as above. The enhanced compensation shall be paid to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. Appeal Allowed