This appeal is the outcome of a vehicular accident which appears to have been caused by the driver while driving Bus no. JK02D-2079 rashly and negligently on January 10, 1996 at Karara and Jan Mohd, who was traveling in the said Bus sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Shakeela Beguma being widow of Jan Mohd, filed a claim petition before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhaderwah which came to be transferred to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Doda and was diarized as 98/Claim. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Doda decided the claim petition vide award dated June 05, 2003. Insurer-respondent no. 2 has not challenged the impugned award. Thus the award attained finality but the claimant filed this appeal and questioned the award insofar as it relates to quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the compensation awarded is not just and proper but is meagre. The multiplier has not been applied correctly and future prospects/promotion/revision of grade of the deceased, who was a Government employee, has not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for Insurer-respondent no. 2, argued that the multiplier came to be applied rightly and the loss of dependency also came to be assessed rightly. The claimant has failed to plead and prove the future prospects/promotion/revision of grade. Admittedly, deceased Jan Mohd, husband of the appellant-claimant, 32 years old was a teacher by profession and was drawing Rs. 3974 as pay per month as on the date of accident, i. e., January 10, 1996. Claimant has neither pleaded nor proved that what would have been the next promotion of the deceased and what would have been his future higher grade. It was the duty of the claimant to plead and prove the same. No doubt, the Tribunal has to assess just and appropriate multiplier and also to make use of guess work. But in the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was a teacher by profession and was drawing pay to the tune of Rs. 3974/- per month, how the Tribunal could have taken recourse to the guess work. The Apex Court in a case Bojoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta, 2006 (2) Supreme 374 held that when no evidence was brought regarding future prospects, there is no reason to interfere with the award. It is apt to reproduce para 8 of the judgment hereunder: "... The Apex Court in a case Bojoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta, 2006 (2) Supreme 374 held that when no evidence was brought regarding future prospects, there is no reason to interfere with the award. It is apt to reproduce para 8 of the judgment hereunder: "... The claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. There is no evidence produced on record by the claimants regarding future prospects of increase of income in the course of employment or business or profession, as the case may be..... Thus, in our view the MACT has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants." In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that loss of dependency came to be rightly assessed while keeping in view the salary of the deceased. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 32 years and multiplier 17 was applicable but the Tribunal has fallen in error by applying 15 as multiplier. It is the duty of the appellate court to rectify the error and apply the appropriate multiplier. The Apex Court in a case Kanhaiyalal Kataria v. Mukul Chaturvedi, 2007 ACJ 1972, held that the age of the deceased was 32 years and the multiplier applicable was 17 and accordingly, applied multiplier 17 instead of multiplier 16 as applied by the Tribunal and modified the award. The loss of dependency came to be assessed as Rs. 2400 per month correctly. Thus the appellant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2400x12x17 = Rs.4, 89, 600. The claimant appellant is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the increased amount from the date of claim petition till its final realization. The appeal is, accordingly allowed and impugned award is modified as indicated above.