JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal for enhancement is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.09.1999 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the application for compensation ('application') filed by the appellants has been allowed and they have been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- towards compensation on account of death of one Jitendra Kumar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Jitendra Kumar Jain was driving motor cycle No.RJ-09-M-5935 from Bambora to Dungala; at around 7:00 PM a bus No. RRR-9565 from the opposite side collided with the motor cycle, which resulted into death of said Jitendra Kumar. The application was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs. 7,11,000/-. 3. The Tribunal after the evidence was led by the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 30 years and was earning about Rs. 2,000/- per month by way of running a grocery shop and after deducting Rs. 500/- towards personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 15 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- towards deprivation to the children and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental stress, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and in total awarded a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/-. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121 and that no future prospects have been considered, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award impugned. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has taken the age of deceased at 30 years and has applied the multiplier of 15, which as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants is contrary to the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), according to which, the multiplier for the age group 26-30 should have been 17. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has taken the age of deceased at 30 years and has applied the multiplier of 15, which as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants is contrary to the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra), according to which, the multiplier for the age group 26-30 should have been 17. So far as issue relating to future prospects is concerned, it would be seen that the deceased was working on his father's grocery shop and thereafter had taken a fresh licence and started a new shop; it is claimed that he started earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and there has bright prospects of income increasing in the future. In the evidence led by the parties, it has come on record that the new shop, which was started by the deceased had to be closed down on account of untimely death. The said facts clearly make out a case for grant of future prospects to the appellants, which in terms of Sarla Verma's case are added @ 50%. 8. In that view of the matter, the compensation for loss of income would be calculated at Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses, the amount for loss of income comes to Rs. 2,250x12x17=4,59,000/-. The amount awarded under the other heads at Rs. 22,000/- does not require any interference. 9. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of application i.e. 22.08.1995. All the three respondents would be jointly and severally liable for payment of said compensation. The amount be paid by the respondent No.4 United India Insurance Company within a period of two months from today. No costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******