JUDGMENT 1. - The instant enhancement appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants claimants challenging the judgment cum award dated 4.4.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in M.A.C. Case No. 633/2006, whereby, the claim application was partly allowed and the claimant-appellants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,99,200/- upon the death of Shri Narayan Lal in a road accident. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 14.3.2006, the deceased Narayan Lal was proceeding on his Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. RJ-12-2M-4990 from Udaipur to Balicha Road. When he was passing from near the "Shanker Filling Station, Dewali", a Jeep Bearing Registration No. RJ-27-UA-0125 being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver respondent No. 1 Lokesh collided with the motorcycle. Narayan Lal received severe injuries in the accident and expired. 3. The appellants being the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impleading Lokesh, the driver, Devi Lal, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident as non-claimants. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a brilliant student. He had undergone the course of I.T.I. in the trade of motor driver cum mechanic. After passing B.A., he was pursuing the course of B.P.Ed. in the B.N. College of Physical Education, Udaipur. He was earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month by working as a motor mechanic, it was also pleaded that the deceased belonged to the S.C./S.T. category and immediately after completing the B.P.Ed. Course, he would have gained appointment as a P.T.I., whereby, he would become entitled to a salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month. The claimants thus prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,08,000/-. 4. The non-claimants driver and owner of the offending jeep appeared before the learned Tribunal and denied the averments made in the claim petition. It was stated in the reply that the deceased himself drove his motorcycle rashly and negligently and thereby was responsible for causing the accident. 5. The Insurance Company did not appear before the learned Tribunal to oppose the claim petition. 6. The learned Tribunal framed the usual issues regarding contribution of the jeep driver in the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation and the quantum thereof. 7. 5. The Insurance Company did not appear before the learned Tribunal to oppose the claim petition. 6. The learned Tribunal framed the usual issues regarding contribution of the jeep driver in the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation and the quantum thereof. 7. The appellant claimant Kachra appeared and testified in support of the claim. He gave specific evidence regarding the bright future which lay ahead of his son in the background of his educational qualifications and experience by working as a motor mechanic. 8. The respondent Devi Lal, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident appeared and testified before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the non-claimants. 9. The learned Tribunal upon consideration and appreciation of the evidence led before it held that the jeep driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The issue regarding the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation and the joint and several liability of the non-claimants to bear the burden of the award was decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. None of the respondents non-claimants has challenged these findings and thus the same have become final against them. 10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased was 26 years of age on the date of occurrence. The income of the deceased was held as Rs. 1,800/- per month. One third of the said amount was deducted towards personal expenditure and needs of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month was quantified as dependency of the claimants. Multiplicand of 13 was applied by the learned Tribunal for calculating the loss of income in context to the age of the claimants' parents of the deceased. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. 5,000/- each) to the parents of the deceased under the head of loss of love and service. Rs. 2,000/- was awarded under the head of funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,99,200/- along with an interest at the rate of 7.5% to the claimants. Hence, this appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. 11. Rs. 2,000/- was awarded under the head of funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,99,200/- along with an interest at the rate of 7.5% to the claimants. Hence, this appeal has been filed on behalf of the claimants-appellants seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. 11. Learned Counsel Shri Manish Pitaliya appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the deceased was a brilliant student and had completed the course of I.T.I. in the trade of motor driver cum mechanic. He was studying in the first year of B.P.Ed. Course in the B.N. College of Physical Education, Udaipur. It was urged that immediately after completing the said course, the deceased who belonged to the S.C./S.T. category would have become entitled to get the job of P.T.I. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi & Ors. v. Rameshwar & Ors. decided on 20.9.2013 in S.B.C.M.A. No. 2210/2008 in support of the plea for enhancement in the compensation. Learned Counsel submitted that keeping in view the qualifications of the deceased and the fact that at the time of his death, he was pursuing B.P.Ed. Course, his notional income should have been accepted to be at least Rs. 7,000/- per month for calculating the dependency of the parents. It was further submitted that rise in income by future prospects was not considered by the learned Tribunal whilst assessing compensation. Learned Counsel also submitted that the paltry sum of Rs. 5,000/- each awarded to the claimants being the parents of the deceased towards loss of love and service is also inadequate and the same also deserves to be enhanced. 12. Per contra, Shri Mukul Singhvi learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-claimant Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 13. It was urged that sufficient compensation has already been awarded to the claimant-appellants by the learned Tribunal and no enhancement is called for therein. 14. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment cum award as well as the record. 15. The claimant-appellants' case that the deceased was studying in the B.P.Ed. at the time of his death was not disputed by any of the non-claimants. 14. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment cum award as well as the record. 15. The claimant-appellants' case that the deceased was studying in the B.P.Ed. at the time of his death was not disputed by any of the non-claimants. The certificate issued by the Principal, Bhupal Nobles College of Physical Education, Udaipur was proved as Exhibit-21 by the claimants to establish this fact. The admission form of the deceased was also proved in support of this averment. The certificate issued by the I.T.I., Udaipur was exhibited as Ex.P-19 for proving the fact that the deceased had undergone I.T.I. training in the trade of motor driver cum mechanic. 16. Thus, from the material available on record, it was established beyond any manner of doubt that the deceased had completed the I.T.I. course in the trade of motor mechanic. At the time of his untimely death in the accident, he was pursuing the B.P.Ed. Course and immediately after completing the same and ; looking to the fact that the belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category, the chances of his being inducted into Government service were imminent. 17. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing the income of the deceased by ignoring his educational and vocational qualifications and the course he was pursuing. However, no evidence was led before the Tribunal to prove that what would be the exact income of the deceased if he were to be appointed on the post of a Physical Training Instructor. 18. In this background, this Court feels that at the relevant point of time, the notional annual income of the deceased in the event of his being appointed on the post of P.T.I. after completing B.P.Ed. Course can safely be accepted as Rs. 48,000/- per year. Applying the principles enunciated in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 , 50% addition towards rise in income by future prospects has to be made to the annual income of the deceased for calculating compensation. As the deceased was unmarried, the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure would have to be made at 1/2 instead of ⅓rd as done by the Tribunal. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. As the deceased was unmarried, the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure would have to be made at 1/2 instead of ⅓rd as done by the Tribunal. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) ACC 907 (SC) and as the deceased was 26 years of age, the appropriate multiplicand applicable would be 17 instead of 13 as applied by the learned Tribunal. The meager sum of Rs. 5,000/- each awarded to the claimants parents under the head of loss of love and service is inadequate. In the opinion of this Court, the said amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- each. 19. Thus, enhancement deserves to be directed in the compensation awarded to the appellants keeping in view the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 ; Sarla Verrna v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 ; Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 and Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) ACC 907 (SC). 20. In view of what has been discussed above, the following computation deserves to be approved for deciding the quantum of enhanced compensation awardable to the claimants-appellants (Rs.) Total (Rs.) Notional annual income of the deceased 48,000 48,000 50% Enhancement in annual income by future prospects 24,000 72,000 50% Deduction from enhanced income towards needs and personal expenditure 36,000 36,000 Multiplier of net income applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari (supra) 17 6,12,000 Loss of love and service to the parents 20,000 each i.e. 40,000 in all 6,52,000 Funeral expenses 2,000 6,54,000 Total compensation 6,54,000 21. The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment cum award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in M.A.C. Case No. 633/2006 is modified and the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation indicated above along with interest @ 7.5% to be applied on the enhanced amount. 22. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the following proportions 1. 50% to the mother of the deceased; 2. 50% to the father of the deceased. 23. 22. The enhanced amount shall be distributed in the following proportions 1. 50% to the mother of the deceased; 2. 50% to the father of the deceased. 23. In order to ascertain that the claimants are benefited to the maximum by the enhancement in the award. The following directions are given for the disbursal of the awarded amount (1) 20% of the enhanced amount shall be paid to the claimants by account payee cheque. (2) The remaining 80% shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalised bank with a lock in period of 5 years by applying the best available fixed deposit term plan. The interest upon the fixed deposit shall be disbursed to the claimants periodically. The banker shall be instructed not to issue any loan against the fixed deposits. (3) If in any emergent condition the claimants require the modification of the said direction, they shall be at liberty to seek modification by filing an application before this Court for the release of the amount from the fixed deposits. Any amount already paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 and/or proviso to Section 173 or any other amount, shall be adjusted towards the amount finally awarded by this Court. Record be sent back forthwith.No order as to costs.Appeal Partly allowed. *******