JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to an award dated July 2, 2002 in M.A.C. Case No. 46/217 of 1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court, Burdwan. The 7 (seven) appellants are the mother and siblings of a Md. Nasim (hereafter the victim), who died in a road accident on December 17, 1994 involving the use of 2 (two) motor vehicles. The truck driven by the victim was dashed by another truck as a result whereof the former overturned and he, having suffered multiple injuries, died on the spot. National Insurance Company Limited (hereafter the insurer) was the insurer of both the vehicles. After having answered all the issues that were framed, the tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim application presented by the appellants under section 166 of the Act by awarding compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Since the appellants had received Rs.50,000/- in connection with the proceedings under section 140 of the Act, the tribunal held that they would be entitled to a further Rs.10,000/-, to be shared by them in equal share. 2. The tribunal, it appears from the impugned award, proceeded on the basis that the victim was earning Rs. 1,500/- as salary. The tribunal also returned findings that the victim died because of the accident in question and that both the vehicles involved in the accident were insured by a common insurer who is liable to compensate for the loss. Since these findings of the tribunal are unchallenged at the instance of the insurer, the appeal is confined to the correctness of the award in quantifying compensation to be paid. 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellants has argued that the tribunal committed gross error in ascertaining the operative multiplier by considering the age of the first appellant and in not allowing any sum on account of funeral expenses, loss of love, affection and care, and interest. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the insurer, however, contended that as on the date of the award, the law laid down by the Supreme Court had been followed and there was no error in applying such law by the tribunal. Insofar as the claim on the other heads is concerned, he submitted that no such ground appears to have been urged in the memorandum of appeal. Insofar as the claim on the other heads is concerned, he submitted that no such ground appears to have been urged in the memorandum of appeal. He, thus, submitted that no interference is warranted. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, we are inclined to interfere with the award but hasten to add that the victim having died a bachelor, compensation is payable only to the mother of the victim, the first appellant, and not the other appellants. 6. While quantifying compensation in this case, the first question that needs to be addressed is what would be the operative multiplier? The first appellant was 75 (seventy-five) years old on the date of the award and such age was considered by the tribunal for selection of multiplier. The law that in case of death of a bachelor, the appropriate multiplier would have to be selected depending on the age of the father/mother of the deceased, is no longer good law. Determination of multiplicand, selection of the operative multiplier and the process of calculation of compensation have been laid down in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 [Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.]. Subsequently, on a reference being made to a larger Bench, a Bench comprising 3 (three) learned Judges of the Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 [Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.] has approved the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). Again, in another decision of the Supreme Court of recent origin reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 [Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma], another Bench of 3(three) learned Judges has said: "11. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased.***" (underlining for emphasis) 7. In that view of the matter, the age of the victim would be decisive for selection of the operative multiplier. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased.***" (underlining for emphasis) 7. In that view of the matter, the age of the victim would be decisive for selection of the operative multiplier. The victim was 21-22 years of age, as found by the tribunal. Having regard to the multiplier identified in paragraph 40 of the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), 18 would be the operative multiplier; therefore, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 18,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 3,24,000/-. We are of the further view that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if deduction of 50% on account of personal and living expenses of the victim is made from such sum. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,62,000/-. Although not urged in the memorandum of appeal we are of the further considered view that in awarding just compensation to the bereaved family member of a road accident victim, too much rigidity has to be eschewed. We, accordingly, hold that in addition to Rs. 1,62,000/-, the first appellant would be entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and a further Rs. 20,000/- for loss of love, care and affection of her son. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs. 1,87,000/-. Over and above that, she shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on such sum from the date of presentation of the claim application till realization. 8. Since Rs. 50,000/- has already been received by the appellants, the insurer shall pay Rs. 1,37,000/- together with interest as observed hereinabove. An account payee cheque therefor, drawn in favour of the first appellant, shall be submitted before the Registrar General of this Court by the insurer within a month from date, whereupon the first appellant shall be entitled to seek delivery thereof from the Registrar General upon proving her identity. 9. The impugned award is modified accordingly, and the appeal stands allowed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied, may be furnished to the applicant at an early date. Sahidullah Munshi, J. : I agree.