JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 18.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 1997 with M.A.C.P. No. 1757 of 2000, the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 1997-parents of the deceased have preferred the present First Appeal on quantum as well as for apportionment of the amount of compensation on the ground that the original claimants of M.A.C.P. 516 of 1997-parents are awarded only Rs.50,000/- in all towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 2. In an accident which occurred on 07.12.1996, the deceased one Maheshrao Laxmanrao Kodarbhai Patel sustained burn injuries and was succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the widow and minor son of the deceased filed the claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 1757 of 2000 before the learned Tribunal, claiming a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation. The appellants herein-parents of the deceased filed separate claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 1997, claiming Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation. The learned Tribunal consolidated both the claim petitions, heard, decided and disposed of both the petitions together by common judgment and award. 2.1. On appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal, more particularly in absence of any cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. After deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 17, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,40,000/- towards loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,57,000/- towards compensation and that thereafter, learned Tribunal, as apportionment of the amount of compensation, has directed that father be paid Rs.25,000/- with interest and mother be paid Rs.25,000/- with interest out of the aforesaid total amount of compensation of Rs.3,57,000/- with interest thereon. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal, the appellants herein-original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 1997-parents of the deceased have preferred the present First Appeal. 3. Mr. R. K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.3,40,000/- only towards loss of dependency. It is further submitted by Mr. 3. Mr. R. K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.3,40,000/- only towards loss of dependency. It is further submitted by Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for the appellants that learned Tribunal has erred in not considering futurity income while awarding future economic loss. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged 23 years and learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 17. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged 23 years of age, learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 18. It is submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. It is further submitted by Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for the appellants-parents of the deceased that learned Tribunal has materially erred in apportioning the amount of compensation and paying Rs.25,000/- with interest to the father and Rs.25,000/- with interest to the mother only. It is submitted that at the time of accident, the parents were residing together with the deceased and his family members. Learned Tribunal ought to have given at least 1/3 of the compensation to the parents. Making the above submissions, it is requested to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal. 3.1. Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case that awarding Rs.3,57,000/- can be said to be just compensation. It is submitted that in absence of any such evidence to prove the income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. 3.2. It is submitted that even in the cross-examination, when father of the deceased has categorically admitted that the age of the deceased was 30 years, learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17. So far as apportionment of the amount of compensation between parents and widow and minor of the deceased is concerned, he has ultimately left to the Court. 3.3. Mr. So far as apportionment of the amount of compensation between parents and widow and minor of the deceased is concerned, he has ultimately left to the Court. 3.3. Mr. Makbul Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the widow and the minor has stated at the Bar that he has no objection for the amount of compensation determining apportionment in the ratio awarding 1/3 to the parents and 2/3 to the widow and minor son and so far as quantum amount of compensation is concerned, he has adopted the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mansuri appearing on behalf of the parents. 4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 5. At this stage, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,57,000/- towards loss of dependency considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month. It is true that no evidence was led on behalf of the claimants to prove the income. Therefore, by guesswork, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- per month. However, considering the decision in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [ AIR 2001 SC 3218 ] and recent decision in Kishan Gopal and anr. v. Lala and ors. [ 2013 ACJ 2594 ] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that the deceased was 30 years of age only, if prospective income for the purpose of future income loss is considered at Rs. 3,000/- per month, it will meet the ends of justice and it can be said to be awarding just compensation. Thereafter, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency, would come to Rs. 2,500/- per month, and age of 30 years as even admitted by father of the deceased, multiplier of 17 was required to be applied by learned Tribunal. Thus, applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,10,000/- towards loss of dependency. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.50,000/- under conventional head. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,11,500/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Thus, applying multiplier of 17, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,10,000/- towards loss of dependency. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.50,000/- under conventional head. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,11,500/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. Between original claimants-parents as well as widow and minor, out of the total amount of compensation, 1/3 amount with interest shall be paid to the parents and 2/3 with proportioned interest shall be paid to the widow and the minor (original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 1757 of 2000). 6. In view of the above and reasons stated above, present Appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 18.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 1997 with M.A.C.P. No. 1757 of 2000 is hereby modified to the extent that the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 1997 and M.A.C.P. No. 1757 of 2000 shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.5,11,500/- with 9% interest thereon on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is further ordered that out of the aforesaid amount of compensation, 1/3 with proportioned interest shall be paid to the original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 1997 and 2/3 with proportioned interest with cost shall be paid to the widow and minor-original claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 1757 of 2000. The aforesaid amount of compensation be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal within eight weeks from today and on such deposit, the same shall be paid to the respective claimants as observed and directed herein above. 7. Present Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.