JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant appeal for enhancement of the compensation has been preferred by the claimant-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 24.01.2011 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Dausa) (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Motor Accident Case No. 226/2009 Smt. Kamla & Anr. Vs. Rohitash & Ors., whereby, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in different heads, along with interest @ 7% per annum was awarded to the claimant-appellant No. 1. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.11.2007, the deceased Susheel Kumar was going in Maruti Van No. RJ. 29. UA. 0203 to SMS Hospital Jaipur. When he reached near truck union at about 11.30 AM, a bus No. UP.85.M.9855 came from opposite direction. Driver of the bus drove the bus rashly and negligently and hit the Maruti Van and thereby caused the accident. Susheel Kumar expired due to serious injuries sustained by him in the accident. At the time of accident, age of Susheel Kumar was 32 years. Mother and brother of the deceased filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/- in different heads. Non-claimant-respondent No. 1 filed reply to the claim petition denying material facts averred in the petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 & 3 filed joint reply, denying the material averments of the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. 3. After completion of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. After recording evidence of both the parties and hearing them, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment on dated 24.01.2011. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are assailing the impugned judgment only on the count of multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is on much lower side. Age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 16. Whereas, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 5 only, considering age of the claimant/appellant No. 1 to be 62 years, who is mother of the deceased. 5. Age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied multiplier of 16. Whereas, the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 5 only, considering age of the claimant/appellant No. 1 to be 62 years, who is mother of the deceased. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on :- 1. 2008-09 (Supp.) R.A.R. 1 (SC) Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2. MACD 2015 (SC) 139 Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is adequate and just, therefore, the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference by this Court in appeal. 7. In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above. According to the Table, multiplier of 16 should be applied for the age group of 31-35 years. 8. In Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court relying on its earlier judgment rendered in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 , has held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased to be 32 years at the time of the accident. Looking to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and Munna Lal Jain (supra), multiplier of 16 is to be applied in the present case. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000- per month as held by the learned Tribunal. 9. Appellant No. 2 Vijendra Kumar is brother of the deceased and was major at the time of accident and he was not dependent on the deceased Susheel Kumar, therefore, claimant-appellant No. 2 Vijendra Kumar is not entitled to get compensation amount and only appellant No. 1 is entitled to get the compensation for the death of her son. 10. Thus, the claimant-appellant No. 1 Smt. Kamla is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10. Thus, the claimant-appellant No. 1 Smt. Kamla is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,88,000/- towards loss of dependency, which is calculated as under :- Calculation Total (in Rs.) Rs. 3,000/- (Monthly Income) 3,000/- Deductions of 50% towards living and personal expenses of the deceased 1,500/- Rs. 1500/- multiply by [12 (Annual dependency)] 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- multiply by [16 (Multiplier)] 2,88,000/- 11. There shall be no change in the amounts awarded by the Tribunal on other heads or on rate of interest. The amount deposited/paid by the respondents to the appellant, towards the compensation amount in compliance of the impugned award shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, as above.