( 1 ) THIS appeal, by the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company arises out of the award in O. P. No. 1600 of 1995 dated 21-9-1998 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE respondents 1 to 6 herein -claimants sought compensation of rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of one Mohd. Ghouse in a motor accident that took place on 7-2-1995. The claimants include the parents, three sisters and younger brother of the deceased. According to the claimants, while the deceased was going on a scooter aby 1646 towards Lunger Houz and when he reached the ring road in front of Krishna metal Industries, the bus bearing No. AP 13 2262 belonging to the respondent No. 8- m/s. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The deceased was aged 20 years and doing business in a beef shop earning Rs. 2,000. 00 per month. The claimants are his dependents and hence the claim.

( 3 ) THE respondents 1 and 3, the driver and the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte.

( 4 ) THE contest was only by the appellant, who, denying every allegation, pleaded that no liability can be fastened on it.

( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the claimants examined P. W. I and P. W. 2 and marked exs. A-1 to A-7 in support of their claim. No witness was produced on behalf of the appellant except marking Ex. B-1, the insurance policy. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,600. 00 towards compensation with interest at 12% per annum and apportioned the said amount among the claimants viz. , Rs. 26,800. 00 to both the parents and Rs. 25,000. 00 each to the sisters and brother, who are minors. The tribunal found that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and in view of Ex. B-1, insurance policy, it was held that the appellant is liable. By placing reliance on the evidence of P. W. 1 and the post-mortem report in ex. A-3, the deceased was found to be aged 20 years. Further, relying on Ex. A-6, the municipal licence and Ex. A-7 identity card by Veternary Hospital, it was found that the deceased was running a beef shop. Taking the earning of the deceased at Rs. 1,200. 00 per month and deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the family contribution was arrived at Rs. 800. 00 per month. By applying the multiplier of 16 on the annual income, the dependency was arrived at rs. 1,53,600/ -.

( 6 ) ON the submissions made on either side, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the multiplier to be applied in the case should be based on the age of the deceased or the parents.

( 7 ) THERE is no dispute on the main facts or the findings on the occurrence of the accident and rash and negligent driving. As the appeal is only by the Insurance company and no appeal having been filed by the owner of the vehicle, there is no need to go into all these aspects.

( 8 ) HOWEVER, the main thrust of the appellant is that in a case of an unmarried deceased young boy, the multiplier has top be reckoned on the basis of the age of the parents, but not that of the deceased.

( 9 ) IN United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M. Manikyam, it was held:"quantum of compensation - Death claim - Deceased was a bachelor aged 20 years - Taking of multiplier of 19 by the Tribunal for calculating compensation based on the age of the deceased - Erroneous - When the deceased was unmarried, multiplier be reckoned having regard to age of the mother of the deceased - Proper multiplier applicable is 13. "

( 10 ) IN A. P. S. R. T. C. vs. Jaweed Farooqui and another it was held:"claim of parents for compensation for the untimely death of their son, a student of Intermediate - Age of the mother of the deceased 35 years - taken into account - Appropriate multiplier is 15. "

( 11 ) IN United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Salammal it was held:"age o