JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. As there is no dispute regarding death of Puneet, son of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and brother of appellant No.3 herein in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.8.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04 HE2357 and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? 3. Sri C.M. Poonacha, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants submits that deceased was a CBSE student. He had done his graduation in BBM from Bengaluru University. Thereafter on 7.8.2013, he was employed as Verification Executive at First Advantage Offshore Services Private Limited located at International Tech Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru, as per Ex.P12, according to which, his salary is Rs.2,70,000/- per annum whereas the Tribunal has committed an error in taking his income at Rs.1,35,000/- per year and awarding meager compensation. Learned Counsel submits that as per the latest view of this Court and of the Apex Court, the multiplier even in case of death of a bachelor has to be taken based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the younger parents of the deceased. If that is so, the multiplier should have been 18 instead of 11. He further submits that even the compensation awarded under the head loss of love and affection at Rs.30,000/- is on the lower side. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer of the offending vehicle submits that what has already been awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and there is no scope for enhancement and he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. The claimants in support of their contention that the deceased prior to joining as Verification Executive at First Advantage Offshore Services Private Limited, located at International Tech Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru, was working at Aegis Limited, located at ITPL, Whitefield, Bengaluru, have not produced any materials. 5. The claimants in support of their contention that the deceased prior to joining as Verification Executive at First Advantage Offshore Services Private Limited, located at International Tech Park, Whitefield, Bengaluru, was working at Aegis Limited, located at ITPL, Whitefield, Bengaluru, have not produced any materials. Even to substantiate their contention that the deceased was employed at the aforesaid concern except the proposal order produced at Ex.P12, the claimants have not produced any other materials. Considering the educational qualification of the deceased and assuming that he must have been working in some employment, the Tribunal was justified in taking his annual income at Rs.1,35,000/- as against Rs.2,70,000/- mentioned in the proposal order. 6. Admittedly, the deceased died at the age of 24 as a bachelor. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% of Rs.1,35,000/- amounting to Rs.67,500/- towards his personal expenses. 7. The qualification of the deceased was not seriously denied by the insurer. Assuming that the deceased had not been working in the aforesaid employment as contended by the insurer, with his qualification he would have got some employment. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in adding 50% of Rs.67,500/- i.e. Rs.33,750/- towards loss of future prospects. 8. As per the latest view of this Court and of the Hon’ble Apex Court, multiplier has to be applied based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the younger parents of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in applying multiplier 11 based on the age of the mother of the deceased. If that is so, the loss of dependency would work to Rs.18,22,500/-. (Rs.1,35,000-67,500 (50% of Rs.1,35,000) = Rs.67,500+33,750 (50% of 67,500) = 1,01,250x18). The award of compensation by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies expenses is just and proper and does not call for interference. The parents, who were in the age group of 55 and 50 respectively have lost their son at their old age. Therefore, Rs.30,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection is on the lower side. It deserves to be enhanced by Rs.70,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under this head. 9. Thus, the compensation awarded to the claimants is reassessed as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.18,22,500.00 2. Towards funeral and obsequies expenses Rs. 25,000.00 3. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. It deserves to be enhanced by Rs.70,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under this head. 9. Thus, the compensation awarded to the claimants is reassessed as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.18,22,500.00 2. Towards funeral and obsequies expenses Rs. 25,000.00 3. Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000.00 TOTAL Rs.19,47,500.00 10. From the aforesaid amount, compensation of Rs.11,68,684/- awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be deducted. If that is so, the claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,78,816/-. Accordingly, it is awarded. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The second respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,78,816/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second claimant, mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the amount on its deposit. No order as to costs.