ORDER 1. Short facts involved herein are that Shrikant Tiwari, husband of respondent No.4 and son of appellants died in an accident on 1.1.20qS when his motorcycle was hit by truck No.MP20/G-1392. The offending truck was owned by respondent No.1 and was being driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant time. A claim petition was submitted under section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the parents wherein widow of the deceased was also impleaded as non-applicant No.4. In response to the claim petition, respondent No.4 submitted a counter claim along with written statement. 2. After trial on merits, the claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded as compensation. The learned claims Tribunal further apportioned the amount of compensation to the extent of 80% to the widow, 15% to the mother and 5% to the father of the deceased. 3. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement wherein claimants entered into a compromise to the effect that 50% of the amount of compensation would be received by the widow and balance 50% would be received by the parents jointly. Claimants agreed that the terms of compromise would bind them in respect of amount of compensation which is liable to be received/realised/disbursed. It was further made clear that the amount already received by the said claimants will not be disturbed. 4. This Court vide its order dated 15.1.2009 sent compromise application to the claims Tribunal with a direction to verify and record its satisfaction with regard to the tem1S of compromise. Learned Member, MACT, Shahdol vide Memo No.92/Nyaya/09 dated 30.1.2009 sent his report that the compromise was duly entered into without any undue factor/ pressure. Learned Member of the claims Tribunal has recorded the statement of respondent No.4 as well as appellant No.1 in support of the compromise. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.4 stated at Bar that there is no reason for them to disagree with the compromise. Thus, the compromise is accepted, 5. As regards amount of compensation, it may be seen that the deceased was 25 years old at the time of death and his net monthly income was assessed at Rs.3,940/- as revealed in paragraph 13 of the impugned award. 6. Shri Pathak, learned counsel contended that for arriving at an amount of compensation, the future prospects of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration. 6. Shri Pathak, learned counsel contended that for arriving at an amount of compensation, the future prospects of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration. Reliance for this purpose is placed on the decision of Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit and another v. Balwant Yadav and others [ 1996 JLJ 394 = AIR 1996 SC 1274 ].It has been observed: "Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs.l,543/- per month. Rounding it up to figure of Rs.l,500/ and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will . not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e., up to Rs.3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average gross future monthly income at the time of death, namely, Rs.1,500/- per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs.4,500/- divided by 2, i.e., Rs.2,200/Rs.2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a bread winner. From that gross monthly income at least 1I3rd will have to be deducted by way of his personal expenses and other liabilities like payment of Income-tax etc." 7. It may be seen in the present case that the deceased, namely, Shrikant Tiwari was a permanent employee of Orient Paper Mill, Amlai, District Shahdol. He was 25 years old at the time of his accidental death. He was in receipt of Rs.3,940/- as net monthly salary after the necessary deduction of Rs.2,669/- as found by the claims Tribunal in paragraph 13. He was 25 years old at the time of his accidental death. He was in receipt of Rs.3,940/- as net monthly salary after the necessary deduction of Rs.2,669/- as found by the claims Tribunal in paragraph 13. Age of superannuation in the services of Orient Paper Mill was 58 years as stated by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer of the said Mill in paragraph 1 of his statement. This witness has further clearly stated that had Shrikant Tiwari continued in the services of Orient Paper Mill, he would have got promotions regularly with increased salary. Applying the dictum of Sarla Dixit (supra), it may be safely assumed that had Shrikant Tiwari not met with an accidental death, he at the end of his service career would have got atleast double the net salary i.e. Rs.7,880/- per month. Thus, the average net monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available would work out to Rs.3,940/- + Rs.7,880/- = Rs.11,320/-/2i.e.Rs.5,910/- per annum. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court dictum, there is no reason to ignore the future salary prospects while working out amount of compensation. The claims Tribunal is not justified in determining the amount of compensation without taking into consideration, the decision of Sarla Dixit (supra). After deducting 113rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from the aforesaid net monthly income of Rs.5,910/-, the dependency would come to Rs.3,940/- per month i.e.Rs.47,280/- per annum. Deceased being aged 25 years at the time of death, multiplier of 18 would apply. Thus, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.47,280 x 18 = Rs.8,51,040/-. Besides this, a sum of Rs.27,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is also maintained. Thus, the appellants and respondent No.4 would be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,78,040/- as compenation. Enhanced amount would attract an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition until its realisation. 8. It is made clear that the amount which is now recoverable under the award would be paid as per the compromise in proportion of 50% to respondent No.4 and 50% to appellants. The amount which remained unpaid under the impugned award would also be payable under the same proportion as per the compromise. 9. Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid manner. Award be modified accordingly.No order as to costs.