JUDGMENT S Hukato Swu, J. - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-08- 2014 passed by the learned Additional & District Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 718 of 2007. 2. The facts of the case is that the deceased met with an accident on 21-04-2007 who was hit by a Tipper Truck bearing registration No. AS-25-A-7063 while walking on the road of Jorabat Tiniali near petrol pump. The truck was driven negligently which caused the accident and the victim died out of the injuries. 3. The claimant was aged about 30 at the time of the accident having monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- from his business. The case was registered as Basistha P.S. Case No. 152 of 2007 under Sections 279/304(A),IPC. Initially, the father of the deceased filed the claim petition as sole claimant. After the demise of the father, the mother, Smti Bharati Kathar was impleaded in the claim petition. With the above fact, claim petition was filed against the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and two others. 4. The claimant prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,50,000/-. On adjudication of the claim petition, the learned Tribunal found that the accident was proved and negligence was also proved against the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were held to be jointly and severally liable. The learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased to be 27 years, considered 17 as the multiplier and the monthly income was placed at Rs. 5,500/- p.m though the claim was for Rs. 10,000/-. Considering that there was no certificate produced by the claimant to substantiate his monthly income notional income was arrived at as indicated above. There was only a certificate which is marked as Exhibit-3 showing that the deceased had passed 8th Standard which was issued by a school certificate. The learned Tribunal opined that the certificate was not sufficient to assess his skill as a worker or a businessman and accordingly, reduced the income of the claimant to Rs. 5,500/- Thereupon, 50% of the income was added for future prospect. Having thus calculated the two aspects, the annual income of the deceased was calculated as Rs. 99,00,000/- p.a. Thereafter, 1/4 of his deduction for his personal expenses was calculated. Thus, the following award was computed to be paid to the claimant by the respondent No.1. 1. 5,500/- Thereupon, 50% of the income was added for future prospect. Having thus calculated the two aspects, the annual income of the deceased was calculated as Rs. 99,00,000/- p.a. Thereafter, 1/4 of his deduction for his personal expenses was calculated. Thus, the following award was computed to be paid to the claimant by the respondent No.1. 1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 12,62,250/- 2. Funeral and other expenses : Rs. 25,000/- 3. Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection to the claimant : Rs. 1,50,000/- _______________ Total Rs.14,47,250/- 5. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.1/appellant has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:- (1) that the assessment of the award for personal expenses was wrongly calculated against the settled law prevailing. 50% of income of the deceased should have been deducted for his personal and living expenses, the deceased being bachelor. The learned Tribunal going against the decisions applicable to a bachelor as per the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 had made a deduction of 1/4 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. This led to excess compensation to the respondent No.1. (2) the multiplier which was considered as 17, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the multiplier should be 11 as the age of the claimant was 53 years. The normal rule is that the multiplier to be adopted should be the age of the deceased or the age of the claimant whichever is higher. This is on the basis that the loss of dependency would be dependent upon to that limited period of time which, the claimant or the deceased is expected to survive for generating income or receiving the income. This is logical. For the above two grounds, the appellant has preferred for modification of the award. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the claimant in his evidence has submitted that there are dependents and has rightly awarded the amount. 7. The multiplier is also appropriately fixed in terms of the ruling in Sarla Varma and Pranay Sethi cases and there is no need for interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. 7. The multiplier is also appropriately fixed in terms of the ruling in Sarla Varma and Pranay Sethi cases and there is no need for interference. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The only issued involved in this appeal petition is with respect to deduction of personal expenses of the deceased who is a bachelor and with respect to multiplier of the age of the claimant in the claim petition. With respect to deduction, it is apparent that the claimant has initially shown that he is the lone claimant who is the father of the victim and at the later stage, name of the mother, Smti Bharati Kathar was added as another claimant vide order dated 01-12-2010. Under the above facts, the position is clear that the claimant has shown only a single claimant initially and it transpires that the first claimant was expired pending disposal of the mater wherein, it was necessitated to include the name of the mother as claimant. 10. Thus situated, even if the claimant at the later stage deposed that they have several other dependents, it would not be justified. Claimant must show the dependents in their claim petition and should not surprise the respondents at the later stage. These facts are subject to verification by the respondents who are the insurer and opportunity has to be given to the insurer to cross check. Though, the claimant had opportunity to implead additional claimant initially but only at a later stage, they took the privilege of including the mother as a claimant as well. The claimant did not exercise this opportunity and hence this Court is of the view that impleadment of additional dependents cannot be considered at the later stage which would effect the deduction of personal expenses and therefore, is of the view that the deduction of 50% of the income of the deceased being a bachelor is appropriate. The same shall be considered while computing the award. 11. On consideration of the appeal, the multiplier as rendered in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi cases, I am of the view that the decision rendered in the above cases is now the accepted calculation. Hence, the same shall be applied. Therefore, no further discussion is required on the issue of multiplier as the learned Tribunal has adopted appropriately and the same shall be fixed as 17. Hence, the same shall be applied. Therefore, no further discussion is required on the issue of multiplier as the learned Tribunal has adopted appropriately and the same shall be fixed as 17. The award which has been granted by the learned Tribunal shall remain. Thus, the new calculation after modification shall be as follows:- 1. Monthly incomeadd 50% for personal prospect = Rs. 5,500/- 8250x12=99,000 = Rs. 2,750/- 2. Deduct 50% for his personal expenses = Rs. 49,500/- 3. Loss of dependency 49,500x17 =Rs. 8,41,500/- 4. Personal and other expenses =Rs. 25,000/- 5. Loss of estate =Rs. 10,000/- 6. Loss of love and affection =Rs. 1,50,000/- Total Rs. 1,026,500/- (Rupees ten lakhs twenty six thousand five hundred) only 6% p.a. shall be added towards interest till realization from the date of filing of the claim petition. 12. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the modified awarded amount of Rs. 1,026,500 (Rupees ten lakhs twenty six thousand five hundred) only before the learned Additional and District Judge (FTC), Kamrup within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. 13. Payment if, any to the claimant, shall be deducted from the awarded amount. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCR to the concerned Tribunal.