G.P. MITTAL, J.

1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Javed Khan, a bachelor, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 14.07.2008.

2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of Tata Truck bearing registration no.DL-1M-2448 by its driver.

The Claims Tribunal further found that the Appellants were not financially dependent upon the deceased and therefore, it declined to grant any compensation towards loss of dependency and granted compensation only towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as under:-

Pecuniary Damages:

(1) Funeral charges Rs.25,000/-

(2) Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/-

Non Pecuniary Damages:

(3) Loss of love, company and affection etc. Rs.1,00,000/-

(4) Loss of gratuitous services Rs. 50,000/-

Total = Rs. 1,85,000/-

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that although on the date of recording his cross-examination, Appellant no.1 has testified that he was in private service but at the same time, it could not be presumed that the Appellant was gainfully employed at the time of accident. It is urged that the deceased had an un-married sister and therefore, had responsibility of the siblings and was also to look after his father in old age and consequently, the Appellants had been able to make out a case for loss of dependency. The Claims Tribunal erred in not making any provision towards the loss of dependency.

4. It is further stated that in case of a bachelor, the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased and not as per the age of the Claimant.

5. I have the Trial Court record before me.

6. Muhamad Khan, Appellant no.1 testified that the deceased used to give his entire income to him (Appellant no.1). Even if it is assumed that Appellant no.1 was in private service, I will accept that the deceased was helping his father in the maintenance of un-married sister.

7. As far as selection of multiplier is concerned, the issue was discussed at great detail in Vijay Laxmi & Others vs. Binod Kumar Yadav & Others, MAC APP. 1148 of 2011 decided on 03.01.2012 and it was held that the multiplier has to be as per the age of the deceased or the age of the Claimant, whichever is higher. Paras 4 to 15 of the report are extracted hereunder:-

“4. As far as the selection of multiplier is concerned, the law is settled that the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher. There is a three Judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others vs. Trilok Chandra & Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362, where the Supreme Court relied on G.M., Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 and reiterated that the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is more. Para 12 of the report is extracted hereunder:-

“12. For concluding the analysis it is necessary now to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport, vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176. In that case this Court culled out the basic principles governing the assessment of compensation emerging from the legal authorities cited above and reiterated that the multiplier method is the sound method of assessing compensation. The Court observed:

“The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants, whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining th