JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by claimant-appellants for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, vide its award 12.01.2006, in MAC Case No.560/2005 (476/99) (138/90), to claimants for death of Mitthu Lal, who was 20 years of age at relevant point of time, in an accident took place on 01.12.1989 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus R.N.P. 54 by respondent driver. The offending bus was insured with respondent no.3 insurance company. 2. Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that deceased was a mason and apart from that he also used to work on agriculture field on part time basis. His monthly income was proved to be in between Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 3000/- but learned Tribunal has assessed his monthly income only at Rs. 1000/- and, out of that, deducted 50% for his own expenses on premise that deceased was unmarried. It is argued that deduction of 50% should not be mechanically made. Even otherwise, learned counsel argued that appellants ought to have been granted benefit of future prospects. In this connection, reliance has been placed on judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1285 . It is argued that in aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has held that it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income towards further prospects, over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. Learned Tribunal therefore has erred in law in assessing monthly income of deceased at Rs. 1000/- and accepting the contribution to the family only at Rs. 500/- and on that basis making computation of compensation. 3. Learned Tribunal therefore has erred in law in assessing monthly income of deceased at Rs. 1000/- and accepting the contribution to the family only at Rs. 500/- and on that basis making computation of compensation. 3. Learned counsel alternatively argued that this court in its judgment dated 02.11.2011 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 870/2001 - Smt. Nana Devi and Others v. Gurumel Singh and Others , considered judgments of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Syed Ibrahim and Others, ( AIR 2008 SC 103 ) and Kaushlya Devi v. Shri Karan Arora and Others, ( AIR 2007 SC 1912 ) ; as well as other reasoned judgments of the Supreme Court and that of this Court, held that award of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- is just and proper for death of a child of more than 10 years but not more than 15 years of age. Learned counsel submits that when for death of a child compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- is awarded, then at-least learned Tribunal ought to have awarded this much of amount to claimants in present case for death of an unmarried 20 years old boy. The award of Rs. 1,35,000/- is highly unjust being towards lower side. 4. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that deceased was unmarried and therefore 50% has rightly been deducted. Claimants in their claim application have stated the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 1150/- and his age to be 20 years. Learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of present case rightly accepted monthly income of deceased at Rs. 1000/- and accordingly awarded compensation. Mere assertion of claimants in their statements that deceased was earning in between Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 3000/- per month, could not be accepted in absence of any documentary evidence to the contrary. It is argued that judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi, supra, cannot be applied to the facts of present case. 5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is although true that claimants in their claim application have stated monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 1150/- but then there is evidence that was produced by them, which suggests that monthly income of deceased was more than Rs. 5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is although true that claimants in their claim application have stated monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 1150/- but then there is evidence that was produced by them, which suggests that monthly income of deceased was more than Rs. 2500/- because he, apart from doing mason work, used to work on agriculture field on part time basis. Even if monthly income of deceased is accepted at Rs. 1150/-, considering that he was only 20 years of age at the time of accident, benefit of minimum 30% increase in monthly income ought to be allowed towards future prospects for computation of compenation, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi, supra. Thus, his income should be accepted at Rs. 1500/- per month. After deducting 50% therefrom for own expenses of deceased, monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 750/-. 6. Learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 keeping in view age of parents of deceased. At the material time, age of mother of deceased was 42 years and that of his father was 48 years. The Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) , has held that multiplier of 14 ought to be applied for the age groups of 41 to 45 years. Therefore, ends of justice would meet in case multiplier of 14 is applied in the present case. Calculating thus, amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 126,000/- (750x12x14) and if added thereto the amount of compensation of Rs. 45,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal on other heads, then total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,171,000/. 7. Although the amount of total compensation comes to Rs. 1,71,000/-, but considering that this court in Smt. Nana Devi, supra, has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- in a death case where age of deceased boy was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years of age, therefore the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. Claimants are entitled to receive total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,35,000/-. 2,50,000/- in a death case where age of deceased boy was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years of age, therefore the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. Claimants are entitled to receive total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,35,000/-. Claimants are further held entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Compliance be made within three months.Appeal partly allowed. *******