SAVITA SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv. for R1 & R2. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appeal is for reduction of compensation of ` 51,38,102/ awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondents no.1 and 2 for the death of their bachelor son Vikrant Sharma, who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 06.11.2010. 2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Baleno car bearing registration no.DL9CG9721 by its driver Ankur Raj Singh (Respondent no.3). The Claims Tribunal further found that MAC. APP. No. 221/2013 Page 1 of 21 Vikrant Sharma had obtained a Masters degree in Computer Applications from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. He was working as a Software Engineer with a reputed company Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. and was getting an annual salary of `4,26,059/. The Claims Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects, deducted ½ towards personal and living expenses, `26,600/ towards income tax and applied the multiplier of 17, as per the age of the deceased to compute the loss of dependency as `50,93,102/. 3. The Claims Tribunal further awarded `45,000/ towards non pecuniary damages to compute the overall compensation of `51,38,102/. 4. There is twin challenge to the judgment. First, deceased Vikrant Sharma was in private service, therefore, 50% addition towards future prospects was not permissible. Second, he was a bachelor and died leaving behind his parents as his only legal representatives. The multiplier ought to have been adopted as per the age of the mother of the deceased and not as per the age of the deceased. MAC. APP. No. 221/2013 Page 2 of 21 FUTURE PROSPECTS 5. It is not in dispute that deceased Vikrant Sharma was a qualified software engineer possessing a degree in Master of Computer Applications from a reasonably good University, i.e. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. He was working as a Software Engineer with a reputed company at the time of his death and was getting an annual salary of `4,26,059/. There was evidence that the deceased had joined services with Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. way back and his salary was being revised from time to time. Paras 32 and 34 of the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder. "32. He proved his Identity Card as Ex.PW2/A, authority letter given to him by Senior Manager of the company to appear and depose as Ex.PW2/2, copy of offer of employment given to the deceased dated 28.06.2006 as Ex.PW2/3, revision letter dated 01.09.2010 as Ex.PW2/4 and salary slip for the months of August, September and October, 2010 as Ex.PW2/5 collectively. x x x x x x x x x x 34. He deposed that compensation payable to the employees is revised in every September and that is why there is a difference in basic salary of the deceased in the months of August and September, 2010." 6. Thus, in view of the specific evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased being revised from time to time, there was nothing wrong in making an addition of 50% towards future prospects. The same is in MAC. APP. No. 221/2013 Page 3 of 21 consonance with Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121. MULTIPLIER 7. As far as multiplier is concerned, this issue was examined by this Court earlier in Vijay Laxmi & Anr. v. Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors., ILR (2012) 6 Del 447. Since there were some more judgme