R. S. Chauhan, J.—This appeal is against the award dt. 22.03.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- to the widow wife, two minor children and the widow mother of the deceased. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 29.05.1995 the husband of the appellant No.1, Mr. Devki Nandan, was travelling with few other persons in a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ-20/G-1541, for Ganga Snan to Soronji (UP.). While jeep was crossing near village Nagla Mevati on Bharatpur road, a tanker, bearing Registration No. RJ-20/G-1541, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the jeep. Three persons including Mr. Devki Nandan expired in the said accident. Since the appellants were financially dependent on Mr. Devki Nandan, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. While respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a composite reply, the respondent No.3, New India Insurance Company Ltd., filed a separate reply. After going through the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues. In order to prove their case, the appellants examined three witnesses and submitted six documents. The respondent No.3, on their behalf, examined a single witness to prove the Insurance Policy. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as stated above vide its award dt. 22.03.1997. Since the appellants are aggrieved by the said award, they have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount before this Court. 3. Mr. Hamendra Goyal for Mr. L.L. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised five contentions before this Court; firstly, that according to the Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), since the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of death, a multiplier of 18 should have been adopted by the learned Tribunal. However, without giving any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of only 15. Thus, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, considering the fact that the deceased was a businessman, who ran a provisional store along with a store for sweetmeat (Mithai), the future prospect of increase in his income should have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Thus, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, considering the fact that the deceased was a businessman, who ran a provisional store along with a store for sweetmeat (Mithai), the future prospect of increase in his income should have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. But, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has awarded merely Rs. 15,000/- as a lump sum amount for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium to the children and to the wife. According to the learned counsel, the amount is too meager. Fourthly, although the evidence was produced to show that expenses were incurred for transporting the dead body of the deceased from Bharatpur to Sawai Madhopur, the place where the claimants were residing, no compensation has been paid for such transportation. Lastly, that no compensation has been awarded for funeral expenses incurred by the claimants. 4. On the other hand, Mr. G. K. Bhartiya, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, has strenuously argued that in case a correct multiplier is applied, then the future prospect of increase of the income of the deceased need not be applied in the case. On the other hand, he has fairly conceded that the expenses for the transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses should have been awarded to the appellants. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels for the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 and 6 and have perused the impugned award. 6. Admittedly, the date of incident is 29.05.1995, by when the Schedule-II of the Act had already come into force. Therefore, while passing the impugned award, the learned Tribunal was legally bound to adhere to the Schedule-II of the Act. According to the Post-mortem report (Ex.6), the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 26 years old. Thus, according to the Schedule-II of the Act, the learned Tribunal should have applied the multiplier of 18 and not of 15. Thus, this Court is inclined to apply a multiplier of 18 in consonance with the Schedule-II of the Act. 7. According to the appellants, the deceased was running a provisional store and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Considering the improvement in the economy, the chances are that his business would have increased. Thus, this Court is inclined to apply a multiplier of 18 in consonance with the Schedule-II of the Act. 7. According to the appellants, the deceased was running a provisional store and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Considering the improvement in the economy, the chances are that his business would have increased. In case the deceased had lived, he would have earned more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, 50% addition should have been made to his income. In the case of Smt. Chaji and Ors. vs. Girraj Singh and Ors., 1999 WLC (UC) 133, this Court while considering the case of a labourer had added 50% of income by way of future prospect for the increase of the income. Thus, similarly in the present case, this Court directs to add 50% of income as a future prospect. Thus, income should be calculated as Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Deducting 1/3 from the monthly income, thus, the annual income would have come to be Rs. 24,000/- instead of Rs. 16,000/- as calculated by the learned Tribunal. 8. Considering the fact that at the time of death of their father, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were minor, loss of love and affection of the father seems to be on lower side. Similarly, at the young age of 25 years, the appellant No.1 suddenly lost her husband. The life of a widow in this country is not an easy-one. She faces not only social ostracism, but also faces personal difficulty as a single mother. For the rest of her life, she would be deprived of the love and affection and consortium of her husband. Therefore, this Court is inclined to increase the compensation in these two categories from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. 9. Surprisingly, the learned Tribunal has not taken note of the fact that the body of the deceased person had to be transported from Bharatpur where the accident had occurred, to Sawai Madhopur where the appellants were residing. For transportation, the claimants had claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has not paid any compensation for the funeral expenses, which according to the claimants, amounted to Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the fact that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a steep claim and according to the Schedule-II of the Act, Rs. For transportation, the claimants had claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has not paid any compensation for the funeral expenses, which according to the claimants, amounted to Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the fact that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a steep claim and according to the Schedule-II of the Act, Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid for the funeral expenses, this Court grants a total of Rs. 5,000/- for both the categories of transportation of the body and funeral expenses together. 10. In the result, while allowing this appeal, the impugned award dt. 22.03.1997 is modified to the extent as under:- 2000 x 12 x 18 =Rs. 4,32,000.00 Amount under Head of Loss of Love and Affection and Transportation Rs. 30,000.00 Amount under the Head of Transportation and Funeral Rs. 5,000.00 Thus, Total Amount comes Rs.4,67,000.00 Less: Amount Awarded by Tribunal Rs. 2,55,000.00 Thus, enhanced amount comes Rs.2,12,000.00 11. The compensation amount shall be payable jointly and severally by the respondent Nos. 3 and 6. The said respondents are directed to pay the remaining compensation amount along with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 22.03.1997, the date of the award, and to pay a further interest @ 9% per annum from 01.07.1997, the date of filing of the present appeal, till the date of realization. The learned Tribunal is directed to recover the said amount from the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 respectively, the insurance companies involved in this case, within a period of two weeks and to issue notice to the appellants and to deliver them the compensation amount within the said period. * * * * *