JUDGMENT 1. -The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants against the order/award dated 6/10/2006 with the prayer to allow the appeal and modify the impugned award passed in claim case No.441/2005 by the Tribunal to the tune of claim made in the claim petition. 2. A claim petition came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal(Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Beawar) on 19.10.2004, which was transferred in compliance of the High Court's order dated 1.6.2005 to Motor Accident Claim Tribunal(Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Beawar). 3. The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that on 16.9.2004 when deceased Shivraj was bringing sand in the capacity of labourer in a tractor bearing No.RJ-01-R-5879 and near village Moja Radhpura at Kali Danti, the non-petitioner No.1 driver of the tractor suddenly applied the brakes of the tractor and on account of that the deceased fell down under the wheel of the tractor and died. The report of the accident was made at Police Station, Masuda upon which an FIR was registered bearing No.149/2004 against non-petitioner No.1. 4. The deceased at the time of accident was 22 years old. He was a tractor labourer and it was claimed that he was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. On the basis of it, a claim of Rs. 19,35,000/- was made. At the time of accident, non-petitioner No.1 was the driver of the tractor, which caused the accident and he was under the employment of Non-petitioner No.2. Non-petitioner No.3 is the insurance company, which insured the alleged tractor. It was prayed in the claim petition that Non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are responsible for the accident and to pay the compensation jointly or severally. 5. The insurance company submitted their reply and in their preliminary objection denied the fact of causing accident by the insured tractor. It was averred that the deceased was travelling on the Mud Guard of the tractor as an unauthorised passenger. It was also stated that the deceased was not working under the employment of non-petitioner No.2. It was also stated that the non-petitioner No.1 was not having a valid licence. 6. It was averred that the deceased was travelling on the Mud Guard of the tractor as an unauthorised passenger. It was also stated that the deceased was not working under the employment of non-petitioner No.2. It was also stated that the non-petitioner No.1 was not having a valid licence. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties framed as many as six issues including the issue of relief and after taking into consideration the submissions of both the parties and evidence available on record passed the impugned award in favour of the claimants whereby allowing a sum of 2,59,000/- as compensation on all counts. Hence this appeal. 7. Mr. Sourabh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim allowed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,59,000/- on all counts is grossly understated and needs to be enhanced substantially. He contended that the issues have not been properly considered. The salary/notional income has not been correctly adopted. He contends that the notional income ought to have been taken at Rs. 3000/- per month, if not more. He would further contend that nothing has been allowed by way of future prospects. He would contend that the amount allowed by way of loss of love and affection at Rs. 5000/- is virtually denying any amount as the parents lost their sole son. He also relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 : 2013 (3) TAC 697 , Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 21 : 2009 (2) TAC 677 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shobha Ram reported in (2012) RAR 272 , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 56 : 2007 (3) TAC 70 and judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors. reported in IV (2006) ACC 324. 8. Per contra, Mr. Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contends that the claim allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. He would contend that the incident relates to year 2004 and, therefore, about 10 years back the claim allowed by the Tribunal at Rs. Per contra, Mr. Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contends that the claim allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. He would contend that the incident relates to year 2004 and, therefore, about 10 years back the claim allowed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,59,000/- was fair and reasonable and is not required to be interfered with. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order so also the judgments relied at the Bar. 10. In my view, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the judgments rendered by the Hon' ble Apex Court so also by this Court, the award deserves to be enhanced, it is an unfortunate case, where the deceased, who was just 22 years of age and who was bachelor and the only son of the claimants-parents died an unfortunate death on account of the said accident/incident; while the parents, who would have been highly benefited, if the deceased would not have succumbed to the injuries and would have remained alive, would have helped his parents during their old age, but because of the said accident everything was destroyed in so far as the parents are concerned. The parents are labourers so also the deceased. At this tender age he was working as a labourer. No amount of compensation can fill the gap on account of death of deceased son. Nevertheless, an amount, which should be fair and reasonable, just and proper deserves to be allowed as the same would help the parents in their old age. The endeavour of the courts so also Tribunal should be to properly work out just and proper compensation/award. While the Tribunal has not considered the claim under different heads after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, it would be proper to work out the claim on the basis of the judgments rendered by the Hon' ble Apex Court and this Court referred to supra. 11. With reference to future prospects, while the counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 11. With reference to future prospects, while the counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 : 2013 (2) TAC 697 as also judgment in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421 : 2012 (3) TAC 1 , the counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 : 2013 (2) TAC 369 as also the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (2) TAC 677 . This Court in the case of Jagdish & Ors. v. Abdul Habib & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 3690/2008) decided on 4th March, 2014 has considered this issue at length after considering the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (supra), Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (supra), Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (supra), Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (supra) as also the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways reported in (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC) , G. Dhanasekar v. M.D.,Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos.2008-09/2014 arising out of SLP Nos. 35565-35566 decided on 12.2.2014 , Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company reported in (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) and also earlier judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of R.S.R.T.C. v. Pusha Ram & Ors. reported in I (2014) ACC 37(Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 and this Court in the case of Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013. reported in I (2014) ACC 37(Raj.) , Smt. Savita Sharma & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Ors. reported in 2014(1) WLC (Raj.) 128 and this Court in the case of Sona & Ors. v. Ajit Mohammad & Ors. (CMA No.3120/2009) decided on 18.9.2013. In my view, considering the above authorities, the future prospects is to be allowed both in case of a person who had permanency in employment may be Government or otherwise so also to be allowed in a case of self employed person with having sufficient stability and steadiness in source of income and can be allowed in the case, where a person may be earning on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis as they also increase their income/charges after some time as the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up. The Government also increases wages as also other emoluments on periodical basis, based on the index accordingly it would be appropriate to allow future prospects as it can be said that there was steady income. 12. After considering the judgment of the Hon' ble Apex Court and other authorities, in my view, the Tribunal was justified in applying multiplier of 15 on the basis of the age of parents particularly lower of the age of father and mother and age of mother being 40 years, therefore, multiplier as applied appears to be correct. 13. Considering the above judgments, I would like to compute the compensation as under:- (A) Income/Salary (per month) Rs. 3000/- (B) Future prospects (50%) Rs. 1500/- (C) Total Income (A+B) Rs. 4500/- (D) ⅓rd deduction Rs. 1500/- (E) Balance Rs. 3000/- (F) After applying multiplier 3000 X 12 X 15 Rs. 5,40,000/- (G) Loss of love and Affection Rs. 25000/- (H) Funeral expenses Rs. 5000/- Total F+G+H: 5,40,000 + 25000 + 5000 Rs. 5,70,000/- Balance: 5,70,000 - 2,59,000 Rs. 3,11,000/- 14. Since the amount of Rs. 2,59,000/- has already been paid by the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall make endeavour to pay/deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,11,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the award, which shall be calculated by the Tribunal on the enhanced claim. 15. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. 3,11,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the award, which shall be calculated by the Tribunal on the enhanced claim. 15. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order/award dated 6.10.2006 is modified to the extent that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 3,11,000/- with interest will be paid by the non-petitioner including the Insurance Company. The Tribunal is directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest rounded off to the nearest thousands in the name of Smt. Nihali Devi mother of the deceased in the Monthly Income Scheme of the nearest Post Office for a period of five years. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- with interest will be deposited in the name of Shri Sayar father of the deceased in the MIS Scheme for a period of five years. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed monthly interest only as aforesaid and full amount on its maturity and will not be allowed to take loan or pledge the same with Post Office or raise loan on the said MIS. The appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******