JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal for enhancement has been preferred by the appellants claimants against the judgment cum award dated 19.10.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in M.A.C. No. 311/2001 (7/1999), whereby a total sum of Rs. 2,69,000/- was awarded to the appellants claimants as compensation for the death of late Shri Shyam Singh, who met with an unfortunate untimely death in a motor vehicle accident on 17.7.1998. 2. Facts of the case are that the deceased Shyam Singh was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. MTI.5545 from Jodhpur to Pali. The motorcycle was being driven by Jogendra Singh and Shyam Singh was sitting as a pillion rider. Near the Kudi Village, a trailer bearing registration No. MP09.KB.190 being driven by its driver Vinayak in a rash and negligent fashion, collided with the motorcycle causing injuries to Jogendra Singh and the instantaneous death of Shyam Singh on spot. The trailer was owned by non-claimant No. 2 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and insured by non-claimant No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The appellants herein being the legal heirs of Shri Shyam Singh filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali praying for a total compensation of Rs. 31,59,000/- with interest. 3. Nobody appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and owner and driver of the offending vehicle despite service. The respondent insurance Company appeared and filed a written statement raising the usual defences regarding the negligence causing the accident being that of the motorcycle driver; the driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle not being impleaded as parties to the claim application and the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. the trailer and the motorcycle not having approved licences authorising them to drive their respective vehicles. 4. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration and decision: (i) Whether the non-claimant No. 1 Vinayak drove the trailer bearing registration No. MP09.KB.190 rashly and negligently on 17.8.1998 and thereby collided with the motorcycle bearing registration No. MTI.5545 causing the death of Shyam Singh. (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive a compensation of Rs. 31,59,000/-. 4. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration and decision: (i) Whether the non-claimant No. 1 Vinayak drove the trailer bearing registration No. MP09.KB.190 rashly and negligently on 17.8.1998 and thereby collided with the motorcycle bearing registration No. MTI.5545 causing the death of Shyam Singh. (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive a compensation of Rs. 31,59,000/-. (iii) Whether the accident took place by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle and if so whether the motorcycle driver, owner and the Insurance Company are necessary parties to the claim application. (iv) Whether the non-claimant No. 1 was not having an appropriate licence to drive the offending trailer and whether, the Insurance Company is entitled to an exoneration from satisfying the award. (v) Relief if any. 5. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants in support of the claim application. The Insurance Company non-claimant No. 3 did not choose to lead any evidence. 6. The learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the appellants and against the non-claimants. None of the non-claimants have approached this Court by way of any appeal challenging the findings recorded by the Tribunal and thus, the findings have become final against them. 7. The claim filed by the appellants was partly allowed and they were awarded an amount of Rs. 2,69,000/- as compensation upon the death of Shyam Singh. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded to them. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in calculating and assessing the compensation to which the appellants are entitled. It was urged that the deceased was involved in the job of motorcycle repairs and selling secondhand vehicles on commission. By this he used to earn in excess of Rs. 8,000/- per month. The Tribunal unjustly discarded this contention holding that the brother of the deceased was also participating in the motorcycle repairing business, which was owned by their father the appellant No. 2 Hanuman Singh. Learned Counsel submitted that the specific evidence was led before the Tribunal to the effect that Ratan the brother of the deceased had opened his own shop and was doing his business separately. He thus urged that the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased to be a meager Rs. Learned Counsel submitted that the specific evidence was led before the Tribunal to the effect that Ratan the brother of the deceased had opened his own shop and was doing his business separately. He thus urged that the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased to be a meager Rs. 2,000/- per month by dividing the total monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- being earned from the shop into three parts is totally unreasonable and the same deserves to be reversed. Learned Counsel further submitted that; as the claimants are 5 in number, the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure has to be made only at l/4th; no future prospects were added by the Tribunal whilst assessing the loss of income to the claimants; that the Tribunal committed grave error in holding that the appellant No. 2 Hanuman Singh was not dependent upon the deceased. He submitted that Hanuman Singh specifically stated in his evidence that he was 75 years old and was no longer participating in the motorcycle repairing job, which was being carried out exclusively by Shyam Singh. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in awarding a meager sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife of the deceased as loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- to the remaining claimants as loss of love, affection and service and prayed for appropriate enhancement under this head. 9. Per contra, Shri M.P. Goswami learned Counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and urged that the compensation awarded to the appellants by the Tribunal is already excessive and calls for no further enhancement. 10. I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment cum award and the record. 11. The specific plea of the appellants in the claim application and in their evidence was that the deceased was involved in the occupation of motorcycle repairs and selling of secondhand vehicles on commission. The income of the deceased by doing these jobs was pleaded to be at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The Tribunal held the total income from the motorcycle repair business to be at Rs. 6,000/- per month and assigned Rs. The income of the deceased by doing these jobs was pleaded to be at Rs. 8,000/- per month. The Tribunal held the total income from the motorcycle repair business to be at Rs. 6,000/- per month and assigned Rs. 2,000 from the same to the deceased holding that the brother and father of the deceased were also contributing to the business and therefore, the share of the deceased in the shop's income was only l/3rd i.e. Rs. 2,000/- per month. In the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is contrary to the material available on record and unjust. The claimant Hanuman Singh specifically deposed in his testimony that he had grown old being 75 years of age and thus, was not contributing anything in the motorcycle repairs. He as well as the claimant Smt. Sona, the widow of the deceased specifically stated that the job of motorcycle repairs was being carried out exclusively by Shyam Singh. It was stated that since the death of Shyam Singh, the motorcycle repair shop was closed. The Tribunal relied upon the fact that Smt. Sona in her cross-examination stated that while her husband was alive, her brother-in-law Ratan used to visit the shop of her husband daily for an hour and two. Merely from this admission, it was unjust for the Tribunal to have held that the brother also contributing on the motorcycle repairs. The old father Hanuman Singh also used to visit the shop and there is nothing unnatural in a son going to visit the father daily when he used to sit at the shop. Merely by visiting the shop, it could not be assumed that Ratan the brother of the deceased was lending a helping hand in the motorcycle repairs. Even if contribution of Hanuman Singh is accepted in the business then also, at best a sum of Rs. 2,000/- could have been deducted from the total earning of the shop towards his share. Thus, the income of Shyam Singh by running the motorcycle repair shop and by selling secondhand vehicles on commission is held to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. No future prospects and rise in income was considered by the Tribunal while calculating the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the income of Shyam Singh by running the motorcycle repair shop and by selling secondhand vehicles on commission is held to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. No future prospects and rise in income was considered by the Tribunal while calculating the monthly income of the deceased. As the deceased was just 28 years of age at the time of the accident, 50% addition to his income by future prospects deserves to be approved in light of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 . As the claimants are 5 in number, the deduction towards personal needs and expenditure would be l/4lh and not in excess of l/3rd as done by the Tribunal. The appellant No. 3, the wife of the deceased, deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- instead of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of consortium. As the deceased was 28 years of age, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in light of decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 SC 3104 would be 17 and not 15 as applied by the Tribunal. The remaining appellants deserve to be awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each under the head of loss of love, affection and service. 12. In view of the above discussion, the calculations and computation for assessing the enhanced quantum of award to which the appellants are entitled is tabulated as below: Total Age of the deceased 28 years Annual income of the deceased L 4,000 x 12 = L 48,000/- L 48,000 50% Enhancement of annual income by future prospects L 24,000/- L 72,000/- l/4h Deduction from enhanced income towards personal expenditure and needs L 18,000/- L 54,000/- Multiplier to be applied to net income in view of Sarla Verma's case (supra) @ 17 L 9,18,000/- Loss of consortium to wife L 40,000/- L 9,58,000/- Loss of love, affection and service to remaining claimants i.e. two children and parents L 10,000/- each i.e. L 40,000/- L 9,98,000/- Funeral Expenses as awarded by the Tribunal L 5,000/- L 10,03,000/- Total compensation awardable L 10,03,000/- 13. The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the original amount at the rate decided by the learned Tribunal i.e. 9% per annum. The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the original amount at the rate decided by the learned Tribunal i.e. 9% per annum. On the enhanced amount, the interest applicable would be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 14. Out of the enhanced amount, 50% shall be paid to the appellant No. 3 Smt. Sona, 20% shall be paid to the appellants No. 1 and 2 being the mother and father of the deceased Shyam Singh and the remaining 30% shall be paid to the children of the deceased i.e. appellants No. 4 and 5. 15. In order to ascertain that the claimant is 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 claimant in cash. (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 claimant periodically. The banker shall be instructed not to issue any loan against the fixed deposits. (3) If in any emergent condition the claimant requires the modification of the said direction, he shall be at liberty to file a writ petition before this Court for the release of the amount from the fixed deposit/s. 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.The appeal is allowed in the above terms.Appeal allowed. *******