JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeals, filed by wife and mother of the deceased, are directed against the award dated 19.8.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track), Kotputli District Jaipur, in Claim Case No. 579/2008. 2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Rakesh was employed in the Indian Army and was posted in the Office of Commandant 39 Assam Riffles C/299. The narrow dispute raised jointly by the counsel for appellants is that the salary income, though as per the certificate last drawn by the deceased was Rs. 7214, but the Tribunal has taken into consideration only Rs. 6409 as the income of the deceased, and in both the instant appeals though claim of enhancement has been filed, but claim of the mother is that she was awarded only Rs. 50,000 out of the total amount allowed by the Tribunal, whereas she also ought to have been allowed equal amount as that to the wife of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel Mr. J.P. Sharma appearing for the wife (Kamlesh) contends that (i) the income of the deceased as per salary-sheet placed on record, was Rs. 7214 which ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal whereas an amount of Rs. 805 which were normal deductions on account of the deceased being in the Indian Army, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the amount remaining after deductions without any reason. (ii) He further contended that future prospects have not been considered at all by the Tribunal, whereas in catena of judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court it has been held that at least in the cases where the deceased, like the present one who was in the Indian Army, having permanent job and regularity of income, future prospects @ 50% should have been awarded. (iii) He further contends that the amount allowed on account of loss of love and affection, is quite meager and nothing has been allowed on account of consortium, so also funeral expenses allowed is also quite low, and thus contends that on these issues the amount needs to be awarded/enhanced. (iv) He further contends that insofar as the mother is concerned, she was dependant on her other son and the Tribunal was even not justified in allowing Rs. 50,000 to her. (iv) He further contends that insofar as the mother is concerned, she was dependant on her other son and the Tribunal was even not justified in allowing Rs. 50,000 to her. He further contends that the mother has sold several properties thereafter and is well placed, and entire amount if any enhanced is to be granted to wife. 4. Learned counsel Mr. R.S. Sharma, appearing for the mother (Rampati) contends that (i) the income deserves to be enhanced on the above factors as argued by Mr. J.P. Sharma, but insofar as the amount allowed/to be allowed on account of enhancement, if any, mother is also entitled for receiving equal amount as she, who is a senior citizen by now, needs fund to maintain her well being in future. (ii) he further contends that insofar as the wife is concerned, she has received all benefits arising out of the death of Rakesh from the Indian Army and other authorities and she has remarried and, therefore, question of any amount in favour of the wife, does not arise. (iii) he contends that amount enhanced as per the present appeal in totality be allowed in favour of the mother only. 5. On the contrary, counsel for the Insurance Company jointly objects to taking of income of the deceased at Rs. 7214 as the appellants have not been able to prove the nature of deduction of Rs. 805. It was further contended that question of future prospects does not arise as neither the issue was raised before the Tribunal nor in the memo of appeal. It was further contended that the amount allowed on account of loss of love and affection, and other amounts allowed by the Tribunal are fair and reasonable and are not required to be interfered with. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and in my view the argument of the counsel for appellants appear to be just and proper and the deduction of Rs. 805 made by the employer (Indian Army) appears to be some deduction being 10% contribution and subscription which in my view is not required to be reduced and the income should have been taken as per the actual certificate i.e. at Rs. 7214. Insofar as the future prospects are concerned, in my view the claim deserves consideration and is required to be allowed. 7214. Insofar as the future prospects are concerned, in my view the claim deserves consideration and is required to be allowed. May be, that the issue was not raised before the Tribunal or not mentioned in the memo of appeal, but the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the issue of future prospects, at least insofar as the persons who are in regular employment or who are in Govt. service, and in catena of judgments it has been held that future prospects are required to be allowed. In this regard reliance may be placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 . Not only that, even for self employed persons, vegetable vendors, drivers, etc., the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly observed (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors (2012) 6 SCC 421 ) that future prospects are required to be allowed, whereas in the instant case, the deceased being a Govt. servant, having regularity of income is certainly entitled to future prospects as the salary would have risen over the years, but on account of the unfortunate death at a young age of 21 years, everything has come to a stand still. Since the age of the deceased was 21 years, therefore, 50% future prospects are required to be allowed on salary of Rs. 7214. 7. In my view, since no amount has been allowed by way of consortium, therefore, it is required to be allowed at Rs. 10000 as claimed by the counsel for the wife. Out of loss of love and affection, it would be reasonable to allow the said amount in favour of the mother to the extent of Rs. 15000. The funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 3000 to Rs. 10000. Accordingly, the compensation is reassessed as under:- (i) Income Rs. 7,214 + 3,607 = L 10,821 (ii) 1/3 deduction for personal expenses: ( Rs. 10,821 - 3,607) = L 7,214 (iii) Applying multiplier of 18: ( Rs. 7,214 x 12 x 18) = L 15,58,224 (iv) Consortium to wife (Loss of Love & affection awarded by Tribunal was @ Rs. 3,000) = L 10,000 (v) Loss of love & affection to mother (Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000) = L 15,000 (vi) Funeral expenses ( Rs. 7,214 x 12 x 18) = L 15,58,224 (iv) Consortium to wife (Loss of Love & affection awarded by Tribunal was @ Rs. 3,000) = L 10,000 (v) Loss of love & affection to mother (Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000) = L 15,000 (vi) Funeral expenses ( Rs. 3,000 awarded by the Tribunal) = L 10,000 Total compensation payable = L 15,93,224 Nearest round off figure = L 15,93,000 Therefore, the compensation is enhanced: (15,93,000 - 9,31,000) = L 6,62,000 8. The compensation as aforesaid is enhanced by Rs. 6,62,000/-. Both, wife of the deceased Rakesh and mother of the deceased have filed separate appeals contending that they should be allowed the compensation. While wife of the deceased contended that she is the rightful claimant and has become a widow at a very tender age of 20 years and she needs at-least some funds for her maintenance, the mother claims that she is a senior citizen now and would need substantial amount for her upkeep and maintenance at-least in this age and thereafter on medical and other heads and it was contended that the wife had received the retiral benefits and all other benefits from the Indian Army, where the deceased was employed and has also remarried. Therefore, question of she being widow now, does not arise and it was contended that out of the total claim of Rs. 9,31,000/- which was allowed by the Tribunal, Rs. 8,81,000/- was allowed to her (wife) and only Rs. 50,000/- was allowed to be given to the mother of the deceased, which is virtually denying the claim when she also lost her son. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and at-least insofar as distribution is concerned, the respondents have no say. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that mother of the deceased, Rampati, has equally lost her young son and she is certainly a senior citizen and which has not been disputed by the wife of the deceased, and since an amount of Rs. 8,81,000/- has already been received/disbursed to the appellant wife, who has also remarried which fact is also undisputed, in my view taking into consideration all other factors, age of the mother of deceased and other considerations, it would be appropriate to allow Rs. 5,00,000/- to the mother, and the balance amount to the wife. 8,81,000/- has already been received/disbursed to the appellant wife, who has also remarried which fact is also undisputed, in my view taking into consideration all other factors, age of the mother of deceased and other considerations, it would be appropriate to allow Rs. 5,00,000/- to the mother, and the balance amount to the wife. Both will be granted interest on the amount enhanced as has been allowed by the Tribunal @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition. 11. In both the aforesaid cases, the amount shall be deposited by the respondents and the Tribunal will deposit 95% of the enhanced amount along with interest rounded off to the nearest thousand in the name of claimants, as held above, in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) of the nearest Post Offices of their residence for a period of five years with the direction to permit withdrawal of monthly interest/quarterly interest on the said Monthly Income Scheme to their accounts. The 5% of the enhanced amount with interest will be paid by bank draft to the mother and wife respectively. The above exercise is to be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the appellants will be allowed interest only as aforesaid and entire 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. 12. The appeal stands disposed of, as indicated above.Appeal disposed of. *******