The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of the age of the deceased in applying multipliers for compensation calculation and the court's jurisdiction to enhance compensation.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Assailing award dated 30.6.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 9-N/II of 2009 titled Darshana Devi and another vs. Rohit Sharma and others by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, appellant Insurance Company has preferred present appeal.

2. On account of death of 26 years old son of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants in a motor accident occurred on 7.12.2008, the MACT has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to the tune of Rs.4,03,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of petition till deposit of the award amount with cost of petition to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Details of awarded compensation are as under:-

(i)	Compensation for loss of dependency awarded	Rs.388800.00/-
(ii)	Just and reasonable funeral compensation awarded	Rs.10000.00/-
(iii)	Just and reasonable transportation of dead compensation awarded	Rs.5000.00/-
(iv)	Medical compensation awarded (As no medical bills placed on record)	NIL
Total compensation awarded		Rs. 403800.00/-

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material placed on the record.

4. Learned counsel for appellant company has referred para 38 of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121 wherein para 18 of judgment of the Apex Court passed in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996)4 SCC 362 has been quoted stating therein that selection of multiplier in all cases cannot be solely dependent upon age of deceased and where a bechelor dies at the age of 45 years and dependants are his parents then age of parents would also be relevant in choice of multiplier and thus he submitted that in present case also, deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident, whereas his parents Darshana Devi and Prem Singh were of 55 and 60 years of age at that time and therefore learned MACT wrongly applied multiplier on the basis of age of deceased who was bachelor rather multiplier on the basis of age of his dependant parents is to be applied.

5. Aforesaid plea of appellant Insurance Company is misconceived and is contrary to the law of land. It is now settled that selection of multiplier for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to dependants is to be based on age of deceased and not at the age of dependant (See para 15 of Amrit Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2012)11 SCC 738). Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in case Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013)9 SCC 65, after considering Sarla Verma’s case cited supra, has held that multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of deceased. The said ratio of law has been reiterated by another three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015)6 SCC 347.

6. In view of pronouncement of the Apex Court in cases cited supra, plea of appellant Insurance Company is not sustainable. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18 on the basis of age of the deceased.

7. Learned counsel for appellant has also contended that interest at the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the MACT is on higher side and it should have been according to prevailing rate of interest in the Nationalized Banks which at the time of filing of petition was not more than 6% and therefore, he pleaded that rate of interest deserves to be decreased from 9% to 6% in present case. He has also relied upon judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sukhiya Bail and others 2010 ACJ 2001 wherein interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of petition was awarded.

8. Learned counsel for claimants has referred judgment of the Apex court in case Puttamma an