JUDGMENT & ORDER : DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. Both the appeal and the cross objection are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one claim petition being case No. T.S.(MAC) 293 of 2011 decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,60,000/- in favour of the petitioners along with interest @ 9% per annum. 2. Briefly stated, the undisputed facts are that the deceased Nishanta Karmakar was returning with his maternal uncle on motorcycle bearing No. TR-01/Tem-4194 when the said motorcycle was hit by Canter truck bearing No. TR-03-B-1684 owned by Litan Dey and insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. The claimants who are the mother, father and younger brother of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,60,000/- in favour of the mother alone. 3. Appeal No. MAC APP. 98 of 2012 has been filed by the Insurance Company in which the sole ground of challenge is that the multiplier used is not proper. According to Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, the multiplier should have been applied by taking into consideration the age of the parents and not the age of the deceased. 4. On the other hand, the claimants have filed cross objection No. CO(FA) 07 of 2012 in which it is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. 5. From the evidence on record, it appears that the deceased was employed in a brick kiln with PW-3, Sadhan Karmakar. It would, however, be pertinent to mention that Sadhan Karmakar in his cross-examination had admitted that the deceased is his relative. No books of account nor any other document has been produced by Sadhan Karmakar to show what was the exact amount he was paying to the deceased. However, he was not cross-examined with regard to any books of account. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the income at Rs. 5,000/- per month by including therein the perquisites which were attached to the income. I do not find any error in the assessment of income. 6. Coming to the question of future prospects. However, he was not cross-examined with regard to any books of account. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the income at Rs. 5,000/- per month by including therein the perquisites which were attached to the income. I do not find any error in the assessment of income. 6. Coming to the question of future prospects. By now, the law is well settled that even in cases of persons employed in the unorganized sector, 50% has to be added for future prospects, especially where the deceased is very young. In this case, the deceased was only 20 years and 6 months old and, therefore, by adding 50% the income comes to Rs. 7,500/-. 7. Now, comes the question as to what should be the amount to be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and the multiplier to be applied. This Court follows two methods while assessing compensation. In those cases where the claimants are parents and the deceased was unmarried, 50% is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and in such eventuality, the multiplier is applied by taking into consideration the age of the deceased. In case, the multiplier is to be applied by taking into consideration the age of the claimants, then only 1/3rd should be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased. 8. In the present case, the age of the deceased was 20 years. Therefore, if 50% is deducted, the balance amount comes to Rs. 3,750/- per month or Rs. 45,000/- per year. Since the deceased was 20 years old, multiplier of 18 is applied and the amount comes to Rs. 8,10,000/-. 9. In addition to this, the claimant-mother is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of her son. Therefore, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs. (8,10,000 + 20,000 + 50,000) = Rs. 8,80,000/- (rupees eight lakh eighty thousand). 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 5,60,000/- to Rs. 8,80,000/-, i.e. by Rs. 3,20,000/-. 8,80,000/- (rupees eight lakh eighty thousand). 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 5,60,000/- to Rs. 8,80,000/-, i.e. by Rs. 3,20,000/-. On the amount of compensation so awarded, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the awarded amount. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest in the Registry of this Court within 3(three) months from today after deducting/adjusting the amount, if any, already paid/deposited by them along with proof of such earlier deposit. 11. The claimant-mother is stated to be only about 40 years old. She has to live the rest of her life. Therefore, out of the amount to be deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released in favour of the mother Smti. Rupali Karmakar by remitting it to her personal bank account, details whereof along with photocopy of the first page of the passbook be filed in the Registry of this Court within three weeks from today. The balance amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of five years at the first instance and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the principal amount shall be released every year in her favour till the entire amount is released to her. The interest accruing on the fixed deposit shall be released in her favour on quarterly basis. 12. Send down the lower court records forthwith.