Honble SAXENA, J. – This appeal has been directed against the award dated 30/1/1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (in short, `the Tribunal), awarding compensation for an amount of Rs. 4.86 lacs with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition in favour of appellants and against the respondents. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. (2). For the disposal of this appeal, it would suffice to mention that on 18/1/1987 at about 5.30 a.m. deceased Pramod Kumar was going from Delhi to Jaipur on National Highway No.8 by car No. DHC 3419, that when he reached about 10 Kms from Shahpura, truck No. GRN 3754, which was being driven by Mohd. Ishaq respondent No.1 and owned by Usman Gani Ibrahim respondent No. 2 collied with the said car coming on the wrong side of the road and that Pramod Kumar sustained fatal injuries and died. It is alleged that the said truck was being driven rashly and negligently. The legal representatives of the deceased, namely Smt. Kanchan Devi Tyagi widow aged 27 years, Tanu Priya minor daughter aged 4 years, minor son master Priyank aged 3 years and parents S.S. Tyagi and Smt. Savitri Devi aged 58 and 56 years respectively, submitted a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 15 lacs. The driver and owner of the offending truck did not file any reply. The United Indian Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 3) in its reply admitted the factum of the accident but inter alia averred that the said accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the car driver and that the owner and insurance company of the said car were also necessary parties. (3). The Tribunal after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence held that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending truck, wherein Pramod Kumar sustained fatal injuries resulting into his death, that at the time of the accident, the driver was in the employment of the truck owner, that the deceased was not at fault, and that the owner and insurer of the car were not necessary parties. The Tribunal further held that at the time of the accident. The age of the deceased was about 32 years, that his annual income was Rs. The Tribunal further held that at the time of the accident. The age of the deceased was about 32 years, that his annual income was Rs. 27,550/- and that after deducting the conventional one third income, which he used to spend for his self maintenance and pleasure. The loss of income to his family was Rs, 18,367/-. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 26 years and allowed compensation of Rs. 4.77 lacs as loss of income to the dependents. The Tribunal also allowed an amount of Rs. 5,000/- under the head loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 2000/- each to the minor son and daughter of the deceased under the head loss of love, affection and the society. However, the Tribunal neither allowed any compensation to the parents of the deceased under this head nor granted any compensation for funeral expenses. The Tribunal by its impugned award thus granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,86 lacs with interest. (4). I have heard Shri Sunil Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent Insurer at length and carefully perused the record of the Tribunal in extenso. (5). It has been strenuously contended by Shri Tyagi that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration future prospects and advancement in the career of the deceased and ignoring the material facts and circumstances of the case has erred in computing a meager amount under the head `loss of dependency, which should be adequately and reasonably enhanced. He has asserted that the amount of compensation for loss of consortium granted to the widow by the Tribunal is also very low and that as per the consistent view taken by this Court and taking into account her young age it should be raised to an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Similarly the Tribunal has committed grave error in not granting any compensation to the old parents of the deceased for the loss of love, affection and society of their son. Shri Tyagi has also pointed out that the Tribunal despite sufficient evidence has not granted any special damages under the head, `funeral expenses, and prayed that the awarded amount should be adequately enhanced. (6). On the other hand, Shri Virendra Agrawal has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and equitable and reiterated reasonings given by the Tribunal. (7). (6). On the other hand, Shri Virendra Agrawal has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and equitable and reiterated reasonings given by the Tribunal. (7). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. AW1 Kanchan Tyagi deposed that her husband was working as a Sales Executive in Aarkay Industries, that he used to give her Rs. 3,000/- per month for defraying domestic expenses, and that her husband was a person of progressive ideas and was not a victim of any vice. She further deposed that due to pre-mature death of her husband, whole family has been plunged into darkness. In her cross examination, she stated that the deceased used to give her Rs. 2,500/- and did not take any amount from her for his personal expenses. AW2 Ashok Tyagi, the younger brother of the deceased, stated that he had brought the dead body of Pramod from the site of the accident to Delhi and that about Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 25,000/- were spent in funeral and last rites. Not a single question has been put in cross examination to this witness about funeral expenses. AW3 Smt. Savita Dhingara deposed that she is the partner in M/s. Aarkay Industries, which manufactures and markets highclass pastes and adhessive pesticides, that the deceased was working as Sales Executive in the said concern. She proved the emoluments certificate dated 5/2/1987 (Ex.6), a perusal whereof indicates that the total emoluments of deceased Pramod for the year 1985-86 were Rs. 19631.30p that during the year 1986-87 till January 17, 1987 those were Rs. 14,772.97p. and that he also used to get about Rs. 400/- per month as working expenses for petrol etc. She stated that the deceased was a healthy and smart person and that had he been alive, he would have earned and drawn much more. She further stated that the deceased also used to get incentives for selling products of M/s. Coatings & Chemical Corporation (India). AW4 Rakesh Dhingara has also deposed likewise. He deposed that his firm under the name and style Aarkay Industries (India) is the manufacturer, marketer, and supplier of the products of M/s. Coatings & Chemicals Corporation (India), that the deceased was wor- king in their Industry as a Sales Executive and that for the period from April 1986 to January, 1987, he had earned an incentive of Rs. 9.186.77p. 9.186.77p. besides his salary and other remuneration for selling their products. He also proved the incentive certificate (Ex.5). (8). Nothing substantial has been elicited during the cross examination of the- se witnesses and as such, their testimony has remained unshatterred. In rebuttal, not an iota of evidence has been adduced either by the owner or driver or by the insurer of the offending truck. Thus the annual income of the deceased has rightly been worked out at Rs. 27550/- by the Tribunal. It has also not committed any error in deducting conventional one third amount of the income for the self maintenance and pleasure of the deceased and as such, annual loss of dependency has been rightly assessed at Rs. 18367/-. The learned Tribunal however, has not taken into consideration the future prospects and advancement in career of the deceased who was in his prima youth and had a bright future but has adopted a multiplier of 26 years. Keeping in view the principles propounded by the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. vs. Sushma (1), for assessing the loss of income to the family, if the annual loss of dependency is doubled taking into consideration that future prospects and advancement in career of the deceased, and multiplier of 13 is adopted still then the compensation for loss of dependency to the appellants does not exceed Rs. 4.77 lacs. This amount is, therefore, quite just and reasonable, and the same does not call for any enhancement. (9). At the time of the death of Pramod Tyagi, the age of Smt. Kanchan Tyagi was 27 years. He died in his prime youth and due to the untimely and premature death of her husband, she has suffered great mental agony. She has also been deprived of the pleasure, society and company of her husband for her entire life. (10). In National Insurance Company vs. Smt. Tulsi Devi (2), in a fatal accident, the deceased aged 36 years was a businessman and the claimants were his widow, one son and daughter. The age of widow was about 34 years. This court awarded Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium to her. Similarly, in Sushila vs. Suchcha Singh (3), which was also a case of fatal accident, three persons had died and the deceased were aged 28, 30 and 41 years. An amount of Rs. The age of widow was about 34 years. This court awarded Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium to her. Similarly, in Sushila vs. Suchcha Singh (3), which was also a case of fatal accident, three persons had died and the deceased were aged 28, 30 and 41 years. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- each was awarded by this Court to their widows, who were of young ages for loss of consortium. Similarly in Sukhram vs. R.S.R.T.C. (4), a similar amount was awarded to the widow for loss of consortium. Hence in the instant case, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for loss of consortium is positively very low and inadequate. To my mind, it will be just and proper to enhance this amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow. (11). The learned Tribunal has also not given any reason for not awarding com- pensation to the parents of the deceased for loss of love and affection and company of their son. The deceased left his father and mother, who were aged 58 and 56 years respectively. In my considered opinion, it will be just and proper to award an amount of Rs. 2,000/- each to them under this head. (12). As per statements of AW1 Kanchan Tyagi and AW 2 Ashok Tyagi, dead body of Pramod was brought from the site of the accident to Delhi for cremation and that an amount of Rs. 20000/- was spent in funeral. There is not a fringe of evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, keeping in view the status of the deceased, and all other relevant factors, it will be just and proper to award an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as special damages under the head of funeral expenses. (13). Hence, for the reasons, mentioned above, this appeal partly succeeds and is partly allowed and the amount of compensation for the loss of consortium to Smt. Kanchan Tyagi is raised from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only), an amount of Rs. 2000/- each is awarded to appellants, S.S. Tyagi and Smt. Savitri Tyagi for loss of love and affection and company of their son and an amount of Rs. 5000/- is allowed as damages under the head funeral expenses. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only), an amount of Rs. 2000/- each is awarded to appellants, S.S. Tyagi and Smt. Savitri Tyagi for loss of love and affection and company of their son and an amount of Rs. 5000/- is allowed as damages under the head funeral expenses. The appellants shall also be entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded above from the date of filing claim petition. The impugned Award stands modified accordingly.