year-old daughter and 24-year-old son. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that deceased was a Security Guard in the respondent No.1 Company and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The appellants had produced Salary Slip (Ex.P7), as per which the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had taken income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month. Age of the deceased was determined to be 44 years at the time of accident on the basis of his School Transfer Certificate (Ex.P6), in which his date of birth is mentioned as 10.06.1975. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had made an addition of 25% towards future prospects; and correctly applied multiplier of 14. 7. However, it is to be seen that keeping in view the number of “dependents”, learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellants that the claimants No.2 to 4 being the 29-year-old daughter, 28-year-old daughter and 27-year-old daughter are married daughters of the deceased. It is my view that these claimants being married daughters of the deceased were not entitled to compensation in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deep Shikha v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2729764 ; wherein it is held that married daughter of the deceased is not entitled to compensation, unless financial dependency is proved. Further, in terms of recent judgment
