BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jabalpur dated 25. 4. 1994 in M. V. Case No. 3 of 1994. Claimants are heeralal Pandey (father) and Gangotri Bai (mother) of deceased Raghunandan Prasad pandey. During the pendency of this case, gangotri Bai has died, leaving Heeralal pandey sole appellant in the case, seeking enhancement of compensation. ( 2 ) ON 1. 11. 1988, Raghunandan Prasad pandey (the deceased) was coming from barela to Jabalpur on his Luna on the left side of the road. When he reached in front of Military Dairy Farm, he was hit by vehicle No. MBK 7425 driven rashly and negligently by Raju alias Riyaz Ahmad, owned by Susheel Kumar and insured with oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Jabalpur. Report of accident was lodged at Gorabazar sub Chowki of Police Station, Cantonment, Jabalpur and a criminal case was registered. Vehicle involved in accident was impounded. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by driver, otherwise accident would not have taken place. In this accident, deceased sustained fatal injury on head, apart from other injuries suffered by him on other parts of body. Claims tribunal has come to the conclusion that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the driver and the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation. Compensation of rs. 25,000 has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. ( 3 ) THROUGH this appeal, award of the tribunal has been assailed. Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for appellant, submits that the award is clearly unsustainable because it does not award just compensation to the claimant. Deceased was a young man of 22 years. He was graduate. He had taken up assignment in the Adult Education Programme of Government of M. P. Although he was being paid Rs. 300 per month at that time, but he had bright chances of securing promotions and receiving higher salary. He was also assisting his parents in agricultural operations. With this background, compensation awarded by Claims tribunal is thoroughly unreasonable and unjust. Moreover, multiplier of 8 for determination of compensation has been erroneously applied by the Claims Tribunal resulting in grant of low compensation. He was also assisting his parents in agricultural operations. With this background, compensation awarded by Claims tribunal is thoroughly unreasonable and unjust. Moreover, multiplier of 8 for determination of compensation has been erroneously applied by the Claims Tribunal resulting in grant of low compensation. ( 4 ) GIVING serious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that Claims tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimant. Deceased was a graduate. He had taken up employment and was earning Rs. 300 per month. He had bright chances of earning promotions and higher salary. He was also assisting his parents in agricultural operations. He was 22 years old at the time of accident. Reference to second Schedule would demonstrate that in the case of non-earning person, annual income is taken to be Rs. 15,000. Therefore, for arriving at just compensation, it is necessary to award such compensation to the claimant which does not fall to a level which is less than awardable compensation in case of non-earning persons. To work out just compensation in this case, present salary and prospects of earning higher salary on promotions in future and contribution to agricultural operations is taken into consideration, annual income of deceased can be taken Rs. 15,000. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenditure, remaining amount of Rs. 10,000 can be multiplied by suitable multiplier of 17, to arrive at compensation of Rs. 1,70,000. Apart from this, claimant is also entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs. 1,84,500. ( 5 ) QUESTION whether claimant can be awarded more compensation than claimed by him has been considered and decided in catena of cases. Court has duty to award just compensation in the case irrespective of the claim made by claimant. Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, discussed hereinabove, we find that claimant is entitled to just compensation of Rs. 1,84,500 (rupees one lakh eighty-four thousand five hundred) for the death of his son from the respondents jointly and severally. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 1,84,500 is awarded to claimant payable by respondents jointly and severally within a period of two months. Enhanced compensation amount will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .