JUDGMENT S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellants are the hapless parents of a 24 year old son by name Pavan C. Philip, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 30.8.2004, caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and insured with the third respondent. The appellants filed O.P.(MV) No.2809 of 2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, (for short `the tribunal') claiming compensation on account of the death of their son. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,13,200/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of award and thereafter at 8% per annum till realization with proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellants filed appeal, MACA No.211 of 2009 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, seeking enhancement of the compensation. The High Court awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 2,60,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal seeking further enhancement of the compensation. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the deceased was aged 24 years. The multiplier applicable for a 25 year old person is 18, whereas the tribunal has taken the multiplier 11, by taking the age of the mother who was 51 years. It is further submitted that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and the High Court has taken his monthly income at Rs. 8000/- for the computation of loss of dependency. It is further submitted that the High Court has not granted any amount towards loss of future prospects. It is further argued that the High Court has awarded only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection. 4. None appeared for the respondents. 5. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned senior counsel made at the Bar. Since the appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation, it is not necessary to consider the finding on the issue over actionable negligence. 6. The accident had occurred on 30.08.2004. According to the appellants, the deceased was working in a private company and that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The appellants have examined the managing director of the employer company as PW2. 6. The accident had occurred on 30.08.2004. According to the appellants, the deceased was working in a private company and that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The appellants have examined the managing director of the employer company as PW2. Several documents have been produced in support of their contention that deceased was qualified. The documents would clearly indicate that deceased had undergone certain course in computer application. It is also evident that the employer had reposed confidence in his professional abilities. The High Court has assessed his income at Rs. 8000/- per month. Considering the evidence on record, we are of the view that it would be just and proper to fix the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-. 7. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident. As noticed above, the deceased was employed in a company. It is clear from the materials on record that the deceased had a stable job. Therefore, we are of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made. This Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , has held that 50% of the actual salary income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects where the deceased was below 40 years. Therefore, the gross income of the deceased comes to Rs. 15,000/- per month (Rs.10,000/- + Rs. 5000/-) before deducting the personal living expenses. 8. In Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 738 , and in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 347 this Court has held that even if the deceased is a bachelor, his age has to be taken into account for adopting a multiplier. In the instant case, the High Court has taken the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration while applying the multiplier. Since the age of the deceased was 24 years, the High Court should have given the benefit of multiplier of 18. 9. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50 per cent of the income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,20,000/- (Rs.15000 ÷ 2 x 12 x 18). The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 9. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50 per cent of the income should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,20,000/- (Rs.15000 ÷ 2 x 12 x 18). The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,28,000/- towards loss of dependency, which has to be deducted from the said amount. The balance of compensation payable to the claimants is Rs. 10,92,000/- towards loss of dependency. 10. The deceased was the only son of the appellants. The High Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. We are of the view that it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. The balance of compensation payable towards loss of love and affection is Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the additional compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 11,22,000/- (Rupees 10,92,000 + 30,000). 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The third respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,22,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent-insurance company is further directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the said amount in equal proportion. No costs.