JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') is directed against the judgment & award dated 13/6/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi ('the Tribunal') whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,45,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. w.e.f. 28/2/2006. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the appellants-claimants inter alia with the averments that on 18/10/2005 at about 6.45 p.m. the deceased Harshvardhan Singh son of the claimants was riding Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle when the offending Truck No. RJ-07-G-2186, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Sita Ram, collided with the Motor Cycle resulting in grievous injuries to Harshvardhan Singh, to which he succumbed. The Motor Cycle was completely damaged. It was claimed that the age of the deceased was 22 years, he was studying in L.L.B. Final Year in Bhupal Nobles Law College at Udaipur and used to do computer work in the offices of two advocates and earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. The compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,60,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- for damage to Motor Cycle and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses were claimed. 3. On notices being issued, the driver and owner disputed the averments made in the application and denied the fact of accident. 4. The Insurance Company also denied the averments made in the application and alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself. Allegations were made that driver of the Truck was not in possession of valid driving licence, resulting in violation of Policy conditions. 5. The Tribunal framed six issues. On behalf of the claimants, A.W.1-Krishan Pal Singh and A.W.2-Asgar Khan were examined, on behalf of non-claimants, N.A.W.1-Laxmi Dutt Joshi was examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck, which resulted in grievous injuries to Harshvardhan Singh and his consequential death, issue pertaining to contributory negligence was negated, the plea raised by Insurance Company regarding violation of Policy conditions was also negated. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck, which resulted in grievous injuries to Harshvardhan Singh and his consequential death, issue pertaining to contributory negligence was negated, the plea raised by Insurance Company regarding violation of Policy conditions was also negated. While determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the age of the deceased was 22 years, the column of employer was deleted in the application for compensation and the names of two lawyers, with whom it was claimed that the deceased was doing computer work was not indicated in the application, lawyers were not produced in evidence and looking to the fact that deceased was a regular student of LL.B. Final Year, therefore, after completion of final year he would have obtained LL.B. Degree and would have become a lawyer and/or got employed somewhere, the monthly income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 3,000/- and ?rd was deducted towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 13 based on the age of parents, the amount towards loss of income was arrived at Rs. 3,12,000/-. Further, the claimants were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 13,000/- towards the damage to the Motor Cycle, consequently, award of Rs. 3,45,000/- along with interest, as indicated hereinbefore, was passed by the Tribunal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in discarding the income certificates of the deceased, which were issued by two practising lawyers and specifically indicated that the deceased was doing computer work for them and was being paid Rs. 150/- per day. It was submitted that the Tribunal did not doubt the veracity of the certificates issued by the lawyers and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to discard the same and compensation should have been awarded as claimed. 8. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards future prospects, the multiplier should have been applied based on the age of the deceased instead of age of the parents and the amount awarded towards loss of love and affection is too meager, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified and compensation be suitably enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the plea of dependency is not proved inasmuch as the father in his statement has clearly indicated that he used to send money for studies of his son and, therefore, in those circumstances the award impugned does not call for any interference. It was submitted that the amount awarded is a just compensation in the circumstances of the case and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. From the material on record, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a student of LL.B. Final Year and was at the verge of obtaining a professional degree, which would have made him eligible to practise as a lawyer and/or to get into an employment. The residence of the deceased was at Sirohi, however, he was studying at Udaipur and, therefore, the claim made by the claimants that the deceased was working in the offices of lawyers at Udaipur and was doing computer work cannot be said to be improbable. The certificates produced as Ex.1 and Ex.2, the veracity thereof was not questioned by the non-claimants and/or by the Tribunal, were not believed by the Tribunal only on account of the fact that the names of lawyers were not disclosed in the application. The non-disclosure of names of the lawyers in the application by itself cannot be taken as a sufficient reason to totally ignore the said income certificates. However, there is substance in the submission made by the counsel for the respondents also that father in his statement has claimed that he used to send money for the studies of his son, which indicates that the income as indicated in the certificates may not be regular as the lawyers have indicated that the deceased used to earn 'Rs. 150/- per day', which does not disclose a regular income. The Tribunal based on the qualification of the deceased has quantified the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, which appears to be reasonable even if the plea raised by the appellants regarding income by doing computer work with the advocates is also accepted, therefore, the quantification of income by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month does not call for any interference. 12. 3,000/- per month, which appears to be reasonable even if the plea raised by the appellants regarding income by doing computer work with the advocates is also accepted, therefore, the quantification of income by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month does not call for any interference. 12. The Tribunal has taken the age of the parents for the purpose of applying the multiplier, however, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. : (2012) 11 SCC 738 has held that multiplier must be determined on the basis of age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of the dependents. The deceased was aged 22 years and, therefore, a multiplier of 18 needs to be adopted. However, as the deceased was unmarried, deduction for personal expenses needs to be made at 1/2. 13. Further, looking to the fact that the deceased was at the verge of obtaining Degree of Law and the type of work he was engaged into would have changed and had a bright future ahead of him, therefore, the claimants are entitled for getting compensation towards future prospects of the deceased also at 50% as determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 . 14. Based on the above, the appellants would be entitled to compensation towards loss of income as under:- 3000x12x18=6,48,000–3,24,000=3,24,000+1,62,000= Rs. 4,86,000/- 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only towards loss of love and affection to parents, which deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. The amount awarded towards funeral expenses and towards damage to the Motor Cycle to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 13,000/- respectively does not call for any interference. 16. In view of the above, the appellants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,39,000/- instead of Rs. 3,45,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,94,000/-, the appellants would be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. date of application i.e.7/3/2006 to the date of actual payment. 17. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is partly allowed and the award dated 13/6/2007 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 17. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is partly allowed and the award dated 13/6/2007 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 1,94,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. from the date of application i.e. 7/3/2006. The amount would be paid equally to both the appellants in their Saving Bank Accounts. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the enhanced amount to the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.