JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the claimantappellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 1.10.2010, on account of death of Raman, in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 16, whereas, the deceased was 30 years of age and in view of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 the same should have been applied 17. He further submits that the deceased was employed in M/s Luxmi Rice Mlls, Taroari and getting salary of Rs.42,000/- per month. The amount awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side. No amount has been awarded towards future prospects, loss of love, care and guidance to the children, loss of love and affection to the mother. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has contended that just and appropriate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. It is not disputed that the death of Raman occurred due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident on 18.10.2008. He was 30 years of age and left behind five dependents i.e. wife, two minor children and old parents. In Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- 21. He was 30 years of age and left behind five dependents i.e. wife, two minor children and old parents. In Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- 21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. 6. In view of the same, in the present case, the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. Ordered accordingly. 7. From the perusal of the award, it emerges that no amount has been awarded towards future prospects. There is no income proof, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as minimum wages of a unskilled labourer at Rs.3550/- per month. But keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : (2013) 9 SCC 54 , the appellants are entitled to 50% increase with regard to future prospects. Ordered accordingly. 8. The untimely death of Raman was a great shock to his family. He was the sole bread earner of the family. As is evident from the record, no amount has been awarded towards loss of love, care and guidance to the minor children, loss of love and affection to the mother. This Court feels that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral and last rites expenses is also inadequate. He was the sole bread earner of the family. As is evident from the record, no amount has been awarded towards loss of love, care and guidance to the minor children, loss of love and affection to the mother. This Court feels that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium and funeral and last rites expenses is also inadequate. Keeping in view the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, [2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2154] : (2013-3) PLR 776, the compensation under the following heads is allowed/ enhanced, which would meet the ends of justice:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Heads From To ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Loss of consortium payable to the widow Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Transportation, funeral and last rites expenses enhanced Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of love, care and guidance to the minor children Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection payable to the mother, if alive Rs.1,00,000/- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.11,24,725/-( 3550 (monthly income) + 50% (future prospects) – 1/4th (deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased) x 12 x 17 (multiplier)+ 1,00,000 (loss of consortium including already granted) + 10,000 (funeral and last rites including already granted) + 1,00,000 (Loss of love, care and guidance to the children) + 1,00,000 (loss of love and affection to the wife). The balance enhanced amount i.e. Rs.5,98,621/- (11,24,725 -5,26,104/- already awarded under loss of dependency) shall be paid to the claimant-appellants, in the manner indicated in the impugned Award, within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellants shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal till its realisation. 10. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------