JUDGMENT By the Court.—This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed on behalf of the claimants against the judgment and award of Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar dated 28.2.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 468 of 2009. 2. Facts in short leading to the present appeal are as follows: Alok Shankar Shukla is stated to be returning home at around 8:00 P.M. on a motorcycle. When he reached Sadal Baba Dargah, Pune, Maharashtra, he was hit from behind by a truck bearing registration No. M.H. 14-V-4651 which was being driven rashly and negligently. Alok Shankar Shukla suffered serious injuries and while being taken to the hospital, he expired. With reference to the said accident, the widow and the parents of the deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was registered as MACP No. 468 of 2009. The claim was contested by the owners of the vehicle as well as by the Insurance Company. 3. The award is challenged by the claimant who seeks enhancement of compensation. 4. After exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed five issues for determination as follows: **1& D;k fnukad 9-3-2009 dks le; 8-00 cts jkf= lkny ckck njxkg ds ikl okgu Vªd la0 ,e-,p-14&oh&4651 ds pkyd us okgu dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, e`rd vkyksd 'kadj 'kqDyk dh eksVj lkbfdy la0 ,e-,p- 12Mh0vkj0@2898 esa ihNs ls VDdj ekj nh ftlls e`rd dks pksVsa vk;hA QyLo:i mldh e`R;q gks xbZ gS\ 2& D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk eksVj lkbfdy la0 ,e-,p12Mhvkj@2898 ds pkyd@e`rd dh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ds dkj.k ?kfVr gqbZ\ 3& D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu Vªd la0 ,e-,p-14&oh&4651 chfer Fkk\ 4& D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu la0 ,e-,p-14&oh&4651 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykblsUl Fkk\ 5& D;k ;kphx.k izfrdj ds :i esa dksbZ èkujkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gksa rks fdruh /kujkf'k vkSj fdl i{kdkj ls\** 5. Issue No. 1 qua the factum to the accident having taken place at the time and date as aforesaid has hardly been disputed by the parties before us. Similarly, with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased as answered under issue No. 2, there is no challenge before us. Findings returned on issues No. 3 and 4 have also not been questioned. Similarly, with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased as answered under issue No. 2, there is no challenge before us. Findings returned on issues No. 3 and 4 have also not been questioned. The claimants questioned the findings recorded with respect to issue No. 5 on three grounds as under: (a) The income of the deceased has been determined with reference to the age of the parents and not with reference to the age of the deceased, which is legally not permissible in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (3) TAC 1 (SC). (b) The Tribunal has erred is not providing for future prospect in matter of determination of income of the deceased, for the purpose reliance has been placed upon the same judgment in the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra). (c) Lastly it is contended that the determination of the income with reference to the pay and scale of the deceased is also wrongful, for non-consideration of the actual money taken home on monthly basis by the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company disputes the contentions so raised and it is submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the multiplier with reference to the age of the appellants inasmuch as the deceased was unmarried, therefore, the judgment in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 , would be applicable. With regard to the addition of future prospect, it is submitted that since no such relief was claimed in the claim petition, the Tribunal was not obliged to provide for the same. With regard to the determination of the correct income of the deceased, it is submitted that there is no error which may warrant interference by this Court. 7. We have heard Sri Vidyakant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company. 8. The first issue to be examined by us is as to whose age is to be considered for the application of multiplier namely the age of the deceased or the age of the claimants specifically in a case where the deceased is unmarried and he has left behind the parents. 9. 8. The first issue to be examined by us is as to whose age is to be considered for the application of multiplier namely the age of the deceased or the age of the claimants specifically in a case where the deceased is unmarried and he has left behind the parents. 9. It is no doubt truth that in the case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Apex Court has specifically held that in such cases, it would be appropriate to apply the multiplier having regard to the age of parents. Reference in that regard may be made to paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the said judgment. In the aforesaid paragraphs, the Apex Court has specifically held that the Tribunals and the Courts must not treat the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act as a ready recknor, it can only be a guide and that not in all cases, the selection of multiplier should be only the age of the deceased. 10. We may however record that the issue with regard to the multiplier has decided on a reference to three Judges Bench in the case of Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 and in paragraphs 35 and 37 it has been emphasized that the multiplier provided for under Column (4) of the table in the case of Sarla Verma, where the victim was unmarried must be with reference to the age of the deceased. In paragraph 37 it has been held that a standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It has been explained that it is high time that the Tribunals move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income of future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The Full Bench approved the table in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It is worthwhile to mention that that judgment in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra (supra) has specifically been taken note of by the Apex Court in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment. We further find that the Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (3) TAC 1 (SC), has laid down as under after following the judgment in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) : “9. We further find that the Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, 2015 (3) TAC 1 (SC), has laid down as under after following the judgment in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) : “9. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: “36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.” 10. In Sarla Verma (supra), at paragraph-19, a two-Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote ; “19. xxx xxx xxx Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. To quote ; “19. xxx xxx xxx Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.” 11. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation to record that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in applying the multiplier having regard to the age of the parents of the victim. 12. So far as ground No. 2 is concerned we hold for arriving at fair compensation to be paid the component of future prospects has to be added in view of the judgments in Sarla Verma (supra), Reshma Kumari (supra) and Munna Lal Jain (supra). Non-addition of the future prospect while determining the income before appliation of the multiplier by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Tribunal is bound to determine the fair compensation irrespective of the fact whether the claimant had specifically prayed for addition of the future prosepct in its pleadings or not. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent does not appeal to us. The said plea is also answered in favour of the appellant. 13. So far as ground No. 3 is concerned, we find that there is a serious issue also what was the actual correct income of the deceased. Since, we are remanding the matter to the Tribunal for redtermination on plea No. 1 and 2. We deem it fit and proper to request the Tribunal to recalculate the income of the deceased for the purpose of application of future prospect and thereafter the multiplier also. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside to the extent indicated above. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the income of the deceased afresh after making provision for future prospect to apply the multiplier as directed hereinabove. The said exercise may be completed preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the income of the deceased afresh after making provision for future prospect to apply the multiplier as directed hereinabove. The said exercise may be completed preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The appeal is allowed.