JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that the accident occurred on 2.1.2009 at 9.30 AM when the deceased Mukhtiyar, aged about 18 years, was riding on his bicycle and going from Kichha to Bareilly along with his companion Mr. Rizwan to paste the posters of Urvashi Talkies, Kichha; a truck no. UK04-CA-0132 dashed the cycle borne youth. So, he succumbed to the injuries caused in such accident. His parents and 8 remaining brothers and sisters presented the petition no. 64/2009 claiming the compensation from the insurance company of the truck. 2. Accident and the insurer’s liability have not been denied. The only point agitated by the learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company is that since the deceased Mukhtiyar was a bachelor youth, hence the Tribunal would have deducted one-half, instead of one-third, towards the personal expenses. 3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the claimants/respondents that since the age of the deceased was 18 years, therefore, as per the Sarla Verma case, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied for all the persons running between the age group of 15 to 20 years. 4. In this matter, I feel that Hon’ble Apex Court has made the position clear in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, 2007 (2) T.A.C. 431, wherein it was held that the right to file a claim application has to be considered in background of right to entitlement and where the legal representatives were not dependent, then the liability in terms of Section 140 does not cease because of absence of dependency. 5. Deceased Mukhtiyar was a child of around 18 years (age not decisively proved). He was having an elder brother of 20 years and rest 7 remaining brothers and sisters with the age difference of around 2 years. The parents were alive. So, the main responsibility to bring up the family is of the father and not of that child, who was running in his adolescence. 6. In this regard, following cases are relevant wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the multiplier should be applied on the average age of the parents, as has been done in this matter. (i) Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Co. 6. In this regard, following cases are relevant wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the multiplier should be applied on the average age of the parents, as has been done in this matter. (i) Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2010 (2) U.D. 527; (ii) Ramesh Singh & Another v. Satbir Singh & Another, (2008) 2 SCC 667 ; (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Singh & Others, 2011 ACJ 1990 . 7. I do also agree that since the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, the Tribunal has committed error by deducting only one-third towards the personal expenses. Instead, one-half should have been deducted on that score. 8. Accordingly, if one-half is deduced from the notional income of Rs. 36,000/- per annum, then the base income comes to Rs. 18000/-. Upon applying the multiplier of 18 on this, the compensation is calculated to be Rs. 2,52,000/-. Simple annual interest @ 6 per cent shall be payable on this compensation amount with effect from the date of filing the claim petition. Amount of rupees ten thousand, awarded towards the funeral expenses, is reduced to rupees two thousand only. 9. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 10. Registry shall remit the amount of compulsory statutory deposit along with the interest it has earned to the Tribunal concerned. Excess amount, if any, shall be returned to the appellant. 11. Let the LCR be sent back.