JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the legality of the impugned judgment/award dated 01.11.2017 passed in Compensation Case No. 58 of 2016 by the District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 27.12.2015 at about 8.30 PM the deceased Tapash Mandal @ Tapash Kumar was going to picnic from Chandil along with his friends. In the way, when they reached Chandil Kandra, Main Road, Near Nilanchal Company then a pick-up van bearing registration no. JH-05AP-7027 was being driven rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle of Tapash Mandal @ Tapash Kumar and Anup Patel due to the said accident both fell down on the road and badly injured as a result of which Tapash Mandal @ Tapash Kumar died on the spot and his friend Anup Patel with the help of the local people admitted in the MGM Hospital for treatment and in course of the treatment he succumbed due to his injuries. 4. Learned Tribunal after considering the documents and evidence on record came to the findings that the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,26,880/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the payment. 5. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal on the ground that the multiplier which has been taken for compensation with regard to the age and income of the deceased are not properly considered and only on this ground the award has been challenged. Mr. Kumar relied upon two judgments (1) Shakti Devi versus New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another reported in 2011 (1) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.) and (2) Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Gyanwati and Others reported in 2013 (3) T.A.C. 539 (All.) and submitted that in view of the ratios held in these judgments, the multiplier can be applied in accordance with the age of the dependents i.e. the age of the parents, who are claimants in the case. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the award and learned Tribunal while passing the award has taken into consideration the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and submitted that in both these cases the issue has been set at rest for taking into account the age of the deceased and the same has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal by applying the multiplier and, therefore, there is no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available on records, this Court comes to the conclusion that the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) will apply in this case also and the Tribunal’s approach was correct in taking into account the age of the deceased for multiplier and thus, the award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 9. The Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount, deposited by the appellant.