Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 17.11.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur in Claim Petition No. 408/94 for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. The facts in short are that on 17.5.1994 the husband of the appellant Ram Sahai aged 20 years, was going in Jeep No. RST 1841 towards Bhankarota. When the Jeep reached near Bhankarota Pulia at about 1.50 PM, the Jeep Driver driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner turned the vehicle and collided it with the tree and due to this accident, deceased Ram Sahai died in the hospital. The claim petition has been preferred by the present appellant for enhancement of amount of compensation. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of accident, deceased Ram Sahai was young boy of 20 years and he was running a general store shop but, the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs. 1500/- per month and not considered the future prospects of life of the deceased. Compensation under other statutory heads has also not rightly been assessed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned award. 5. It has been stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 2500/- per month but, no documentary evidence has been produced in this regard. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1500/-. But, looking to the facts that deceased was of young age, no future prospects of rise of the deceased have been taken care of. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of RSRTC vs. Smt. Baby & Ors., 2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 264 wherein it was held as under:- "However, the Tribunal has completely over looked future rise in income of the deceased. When a person is a young age of 25 was earning Rs. 1800/-, then, after few years, he would have at least earned double amount than what he was earning at the time of accident." 6. When a person is a young age of 25 was earning Rs. 1800/-, then, after few years, he would have at least earned double amount than what he was earning at the time of accident." 6. He has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman Iyer & Anr., 2004(1) WLC (SC) Civil 40 wherein it was considered that the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of accident. He was a good student and his future prospects have also been considered. 7. Looking to the above, in the present case the deceased was of only 20 years of age and hence, 50% of his income should be taken as future prospects and hence, his income for the purpose of calculation of compensation should be Rs. 1500 + 700 = Rs. 2200/- per month out of which, deduction of 1/3rd is to be made. Thus, after deduction the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1467/- per month and multiplier of 16, which has rightly been applied by the Tribunal, is applicable. Hence, the compensation for loss of income should be calculated as 1467 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 2,81,664/-. Hence, the increase in the compensation under this head is Rs. 2,81,664 - 2,30,400 = Rs. 51,264/-. There is no need to enhance any compensation under other statutory heads. They will remain same. Other conditions of the award shall also remain same. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation under the head of loss of income is enhanced by Rs. 51,264/- alongwith the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of appeal till actual payment is made.