JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant who is a widow and mother of deceased Roshan Singh, aged about 19 years, who died in the motor accident on 2.8.1983.Respondent No. 4. is wife of the brother of the deceased and respondent No.5 is minor daughter of respondent No.4. The Claims Tribunal, by Award, passed on 10.5.1990, has granted a sum of Rs. 54,000/- being the t6tal compensation to the claimants. The appellant, mother of the deceased, has approached this Court, claiming enhancement in the amount of compensation. At the outset, it may be stated that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being the brother's wife and daughter of the deceased, are neither legal heirs of the deceased, nor his dependents and they could not have been awarded any compensation. The Award, to the extent it grants compensation to respondents 4 and 5, jointly with the appellant is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The appellant alone being the dependent of the deceased, was liable to be awarded the entire compensation. The only relevant fact for deciding this appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation is that the deceased was a young boy who had recently passed his Matriculation examination and was doing some part-time work with the Contractor Kailash (A.W. 3). According to the evidence of that Contractor, who claims to be the employer of the deceased, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month was paid to the deceased. Learned Judge of the Claims Tribunal, however, determined his income at Rs. 400/- per month. A sum of Rs. 300/- was determined as the dependency of the claimant and taking the multiplier of 15, a sum of Rs. 54,000/- was awarded. The learned counsel for the claimant cited a few cases at the Bar in support of his contention that the multiplier between 20 to 25 should have been taken. It was also contended that the Tribunal erred in not accepting the evidence of the employer of the deceased that a sum of Rs. 1,000/was paid to him as salary per month. The learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company, in his reply, submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record that the deceased was a Matriculate and that he had any earning. According to him, the employer was unable to produce any documentary evidence of payment of salary to the deceased. 1,000/was paid to him as salary per month. The learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company, in his reply, submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record that the deceased was a Matriculate and that he had any earning. According to him, the employer was unable to produce any documentary evidence of payment of salary to the deceased. The counsel appearing for the Insurance Company also cited cases to state that the multiplier of 10, taken was just and reasonable. Having considered the evidence on record, in our opinion, the oral evidence of the mother and the employer cannot be disbelieved that the deceased had education upto Matriculation and he was able to earn his living for his own self and his widowed mother. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a widowed mother has lost the sole support. The deceased was a young boy and had been educated. The Tribunal should have given some weight also to the fact that he would have further prospects of better job in his adult age. Some allowance was also required to be given to uncertainties of life. But, it can reasonably he assumed on the basis of the evidence on record and the status of the family to which the deceased belonged, that as a young man, he would have been able to earn sufficient to maintain himself and his mother. The income of Rs. 400/- per month, determined by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be unreasonable or based on no evidence. As a matter of fact, due allowance should have been given to the prospective income of the deceased as he would have advanced in age. Thus, his present income of Rs. 400/- per month plus his prospective income with due allowance to uncertainties, a sum of Rs. 500/-permonthshould have been determined as his income which was a loss to the family. The widowed mother, till the deceased would have got married, would have been receiving a sum of Rs. 300/- per month. By a latest amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Schedule thereunder, for the age of 19, multiplier proposed is 16. It is true that the accident occurred in the year 1983, but in calculation the amount of compensation due notice has to be given to the provisions contained in the latest legislative enactment. 300/- per month. By a latest amendment made to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Schedule thereunder, for the age of 19, multiplier proposed is 16. It is true that the accident occurred in the year 1983, but in calculation the amount of compensation due notice has to be given to the provisions contained in the latest legislative enactment. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the minimum compensation based on 'No fault' is Rs. 50,000/- and the multiplier indicated for 'fault' compensation for deceased aged 19 years is sixteen. The claimant is, therefore, entitled to compensation determined on the above basis. We are not aware whether the awarded compensation has been paid to the claimants or not. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that after filing of the claim petition, 'No fault' compensation as laid down in the repealed Act was paid. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that for no fault on the part of the Insurance Company, a huge amount of interest also was required to be paid. The award came to be passed for the accident of 1983 only in the year 1990. The above argument should go in favour of the claimants and not in favour of the Insurance Company. We also find that nothing has been paid for loss of estate which should, in any case, be atleast upto Rs. 15,000/- as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and others (1994 ACJ 1). For the reasons aforesaid, we re-determine the amount of compensation payable to the appellant, who is the widowed mother; for the death of her young son. Annual dependency - Rs. 300/- x 12= 3,600/-x 16= Rs. 57,600/-. In addition to the above, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. The total compensation would, thus, come to Rs. 72,600/-. On this amount, the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim to the date of payment. In the-circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.