JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 19.05.2007, passed byMACT, Indore, in Claim Case No.35/2006. By the impugned award, the ClaimsTribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,90,000/with interest to the claimantsfor the death of one Krishanpal Singh, who died on 08.02.2006 in vehicleaccident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side andhence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awardedby the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question thatarises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensationawarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in thecompensation awarded and if so to what extent ? 2. It isnot necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accidentoccurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable forpaying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findingsare recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of thesefindings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at theinstance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance companyeither by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter,there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on allthese issues. 3. LearnedCounsel for the appellants submit that in the death case of Krishanpal Singh,who was the husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellants No. 2to 4 died on 08.02.2006. The Claims Tribunal by impugned award partly allowedthe claim petition filed by claimants as stated supra and awarded a sum ofRs.10,90,000/, breakup of which is as under :Rs. 10,80,000/Towards loss ofdependency. Rs. 2,000/Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/Towards consortium.Rs. 3,000/Toward loss of estate. Rs. 10,90,000/Total 4. Learnedcounsel for the appellants submit that deceased was Sub Engineer in WaterResources Department, whose salary was Rs. 14,747/per month. Learned tribunaltaken into consideration salary of Rs. 15000/per month and after deduction of10% towards income tax the net income of deceased was assessed @ Rs.13,500/outof which 1/3rd has been deducted towards personal expenses and multiplier of 10was applied. It is submitted that learned tribunal has not taken intoconsideration rise in salary which Govt. Employee gets in due course and hasnot considered future prospects for which reliance is placed on a decision inthe matter of K.R, Madhusudhan Vs. It is submitted that learned tribunal has not taken intoconsideration rise in salary which Govt. Employee gets in due course and hasnot considered future prospects for which reliance is placed on a decision inthe matter of K.R, Madhusudhan Vs. Administrative Officer 2011 ACJ 373 . 5. Learnedcounsel further submits that since dependents are four in number, therefore, onaccount of personal expenses 1/4th amount ought to have been deducted insteadof 1/3th. It is submitted that similarly multiplier of 10 has wrongly beenapplied, which ought to have been 11 looking to the age of the deceased whichwas 51 years. 6. LearnedCounsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that amount awarded is just and properwhich requires no interference since on account of death of deceased the State Govt has already paid 5,00000/to the appellants. It is submitted that incomehas been assessed on higher side. 7. From perusalof the record, it is evident that all the appellants No. 1 to 3 were major atthe time of accident. It is only the appellant No. 4, who was aged 17 years. Inthe circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned tribunal committed noerror in applying multiplier of 10 in deducting 1/3rd towards personalexpenses. 8. So faras income of the deceased is concerned which was assessed @ Rs. 15,000/permonth and after deducting 10% towards income tax, learned tribunal assessed theincome of the deceased for the purpose of dependency @ Rs. 13,500/while in factthe salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,747/per month. Thus the income of thedeceased has rightly been taken by the learned tribunal and it cannot be saidthat it was on lower side. 9. So faras future prospects are concerned in the matter of Sarala Verma Vs. DelhiTransport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1289, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that there should be no addition toincome for future prospects where the age of the deceased is more than 50years, so as to avoid uncertainties in the outcome of litigation. It wasfurther observed that a departure can be made in rare and exceptional casesinvolving special circumstances. DelhiTransport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1289, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that there should be no addition toincome for future prospects where the age of the deceased is more than 50years, so as to avoid uncertainties in the outcome of litigation. It wasfurther observed that a departure can be made in rare and exceptional casesinvolving special circumstances. In the matter of K.R. Madhusudhan Vs.Administrative Officer 2011 ACJ 743 , wherein the age of the deceased was aged52 years, after taking into consideration the rule of thumb evolved in SarlaVerms's case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the rule has to be applied tothose cases where there was no concrete evidence on record of definite rise inthe income due to future prospects. It was further held that obviously, therule was based on assumption to avoid uncertainties and inconsistencies in theinterpretation of different Courts and to overcome the same. In the matter ofMadhusudan (supra) it was further held that there is clear and incontrovertibleevidence on record that the deceased was entitled and in fact bound to get arise in income in future. A fact which was corroborated by evidence on recordhence it was held that it comes within the 'exceptional circumstances' and notwithin the purview of rule of thumb laid down in the matter of Sarla Verma itwas further held that even though the deceased was above 50 years of age,claimants are entitled to increase in income due to future prospects. 10. In thepresent case there is no evidence of rise in financial status of deceased. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, appellants are not entitled for anyamount on account of future prospects. So far as deduction of 1/3rd towardspersonal expenses are concerned, in the present case appellants are four innumber, who were dependents on the deceased. Appellant No.1 is widow, and ishaving only son who is appellant No. 4, whose photograph is on record, and appellantNo. 1 in her examination in Chief has stated that her son appellant No. 4 iscompletely disabled and has further stated that appellant No. 1 is having nomeans for the treatment of appellant No. 4. Appellant No. 1 has not been crossexamined by the respondent No. 2 upon this part of the statement. Appellant No. 1 has not been crossexamined by the respondent No. 2 upon this part of the statement. Keeping inview the facts that the appellants are four in number and appellants No. 2& 3 were of marriageable age at the time of accident, this Court is of theview that deduction ought to have been 1/4th on account of personal expenses.Similarly multiplier of 10 has wrongly been applied, which ought to have been11. Appellants are entitled for the following amount Rs. 13,36,500/Towards lossof dependency. Rs. 5,000/Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000/Towardsconsortium. Rs. 15,000/Towards love and affection. Rs. 5,000/Toward loss ofestate. Rs. 13,66,500/Total 11. Thus,the appellants are entitled for Rs.13,66,500//, instead of Rs.10,90,000/. Theenhanced amount is of Rs.2,76,500/, which shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. fromthe date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the InsuranceCompany with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed toinvest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellantNo.1 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No.1 isresiding, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance.Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Accountof appellant No.1, which shall be opened by the appellant No.1 from whereappellant No.1 can withdraw the amount as per her needs. However, on anapplication by the appellant No.1 this condition could be modified by thelearned tribunal in exceptional circumstances. 12. With theaforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.