JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.8.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,37,200/- in favour of the appellant-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against the respondents. 2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants filed this appeal seeking enhancement. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned. 4. The deceased Anthony Daulat was 42 years of age and was employed on the post of driver with National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi, a Central Government Undertaking concern. His monthly salary was Rs. 3276/- vide Ex. 11. There are as many as 9 dependents on the income of the deceased, who are appellants herein. The Tribunal computed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 1200/- and the dependency at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month. Dependency of Rs. 800/- per month was further computed by applying the multiplier of 12 years purchase factor. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the income and age of the deceased have been established by the claimants and their testimony remained uncontroverted. In rebuttal, respondents did not lead any evidence in this regard. It was further contended that the Tribunal fell in error in determining the monthly income to be Rs. 1200/- as against the established income of Rs. 3276/- per month without any valid and sound reason. It was also contended that the multiplier of 12 applied by the Tribunal is also on lower side. It was contended that the maximum multiplier now applicable is of 18 years purchase factor as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court U.P. State Road Transport v. Trilok Chand 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) . He further contended that multiplier of 15 is provided in the case of fatal accidents where the victim of accident dies in the age group of above 40 but not exceeding 45 years of age, as per the second Schedule of section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment impugned. 6. In my considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly low. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment impugned. 6. In my considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly low. There is no evidence in rebuttal so far as age and income of the deceased is concerned and, therefore, there was no any reason for the Tribunal to determine the income to be at Rs. 1200/- per month. Tribunal fell in error in not computing the compensation on the basis of established income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 3276/- per month, out of this amount ⅓ of the income is to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased himself. Thus, the dependency comes to Rs. 2100/- per month on the relevant date of accident. The Tribunal has also not taken into future prospects of the deceased. It is settled law that while awarding the compensation, the future prospects of life and advancement of career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas and Ors, ACJ 194 page 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under; "The future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand." 7. In number of cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while computing the compensation, the future prospects is to be taken into account. The income which the deceased used to make, would not have frozen for all time to come, but would have been reasonably enhanced. Taking into account the future prospects of the deceased the monthly income of the deceased can safely be taken to be of Rs. 4800/- out of which this amount ⅓ of income to be deducted for his personal living expenses which the deceased would have been incurred. Thus, the monthly contribution of the deceased works out to Rs. 3000/-. This amount needs to be multiplied by adopting suitable multiplier in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier is of 15 years purchase factor... Thus, the loss of income is computed 3000 X 12 X 15 = 5,40,000/- The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium Rs. 2000/- each to the children of the deceased for loss of love and affection. Thus, the loss of income is computed 3000 X 12 X 15 = 5,40,000/- The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium Rs. 2000/- each to the children of the deceased for loss of love and affection. Since compensation under the head 'Loss of income' has been enhanced, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation under the head 'loss of company consortium and love and affection.' Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,62,000/- (5,40,000+10,000+12,000/-) rounded to Rs. 5,60,000/-. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,37,200/- to Rs. 5,60,000/- with interest at the rate and from the date allowed by the Tribunal. Out of the total compensation awarded, appellant No. 1 widow of the deceased will get Rs. 2,50,000/- and interest thereon, appellants No. 2 to 7 Rs. 35,000/- each and appellants No. 8 and 9 Rs. 65000/- each. The Tribunal shall take into account the guideline issued by Hon'ble Supreme court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, reported in 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) and invest as much of amount as it thinks reasonable in long term deposit yielding adequate returns permitting the claimants to withdraw the interest periodically.No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******