The appellants, who are parents of the deceased, in a road accident, seek enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.V), Chennai.

2. On 25.05.2001, at about 6 p.m., at the 17M Bus-stop, on the N.S.C. Bose Road, in the road accident, one Ranjith Krishnan lost his life. It was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's bus. The parents of the deceased, who are appellants have claimed compensation. The Tribunal awarded them totally Rs.1,45,000/-.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMT.SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)], considering the age of the mother, the multiplier should be "15", however, the Tribunal had taken the multiplier "10". In SANTOSH DEVI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS [2012 ACJ 1428], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even as regards persons employed in unorganized sector or in a private sector as they are also entitled to salary increase due to pay revision, wage increase, there is loss of future prospects, for such a loss, in the facts and circumstances of this case, 50% of his salary is to be added to his monthly salary. Thus, just compensation was not awarded to them.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no evidence to give compensation for loss of future prospects. The deceased died a bachelor. So, even as per SARALA VERMA (supra), deduction for his pleasure and other expenses should be 50% of his monthly salary. He was employed in a private shop. So, no compensation for future loss shall be given to him. But, the Tribunal had deducted only 1/3rd. What was granted to them by the Tribunal itself is on the higher side.

5. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the case-records and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Admittedly, the deceased died a bachelor. Then, he was 17 years old. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier "10". As per SARALA VERMA (supra), in a fatal case, for the death of a bachelor, age of his mother is to be taken for choosing the multiplier. In this case, the mother of the deceased, namely, first appellant was then 37 years old. As per SARALA VERMA (supra), the multiplier is "15".

7. PW1, Vanasundari, the mother of the deceased had stated that her son was employed as an Office Assistant in the shop belonging to PW2 Mhd.Sathik and he was paid Rs.1,500/- per month. PW2 affirmed it in his evidence. It was not seriously challenged by the respondent. In this circumstances, his monthly salary at Rs.1,500/-has been accepted by the Tribunal. We also concur with this.

8. As per SARALA VERMA (supra), in case, the deceased died a bachelor, the deduction towards his pleasure and other expenses should be 50% of his monthly salary. But, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd from his salary. So, the rate of reduction has to be revised.

9. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the benefit of giving compensation for loss of future prospects cannot be restricted to persons employed in stable jobs such as Government Job or Bank jobs etc., even persons employed in unorganized sector, in private jobs are also getting salary increase / pay revision and promotions and increase in cost of living also cannot be ignored.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that as per SARALA VERMA (supra) giving of compensation for loss of future prospects arises when the deceased was having a stable job, such as Govt. service or in the service of State or Central Govt. Corporations. But, in the case before us, the deceased was employed in a private shop, so, giving of compensation for loss of future prospects does not arise in this case.

11. In SANTOSH DEVI (supra), the deceased aged 45 was running a milk dairy and was doing agriculture. So, h