JUDGMENT : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. 1. This is an appeal of the year 2009. 2. It is an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on account of death of one Kewal Krishan aged about 36 years who was standing on the side of National Highway. A private bus bearing number JK02P-2030, insured with the respondent-Insurance Company, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver hit him and in that accident he died. Wife aged about 30 years, three minor children, father 65 years old, mother 60 years old and an unmarried sister 25 years old are the claimants. 3. Before the Tribunal, the finding of negligence and liability of the owner of the vehicle and Insurance Company to compensate the claimants is not in dispute. Following witnesses were examined before the Tribunal namely, (i) Amar chand-who proved the income of the deceased, (ii) Darshan Manyal-Kye witness. The documents brought on record were the Salary Certificate (Exhibit - AC). The Tribunal fixed income at Rs. 5924/- rounded it at Rs. 6000/-. It thereafter adopted the multiplier of 14 and after deducting ?rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of monthly benefits was fixed at Rs. 4000/-. The annual loss of benefits, therefore, came to Rs. 6,72,000/-. For loss of consortium and funeral expenses Rs. 10000/-each was awarded. In all an amount of Rs. 6,92,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as follows: For loss of dependency Rs. 6,72,000/- For loss of consortium to widow Rs. 10,000/- For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- No amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the minor children, the parents and the unmarried sister. 4. In appeal it is contended that deceased was 36 years old and he had bright future prospectus also. The claim was for Rs. 15,30,000/- but the Tribunal granted a meager amount. Hence the appeal. 5. The accident in this case happened in the year 2005. The deceased was a Helper in Irrigation Department and aged 36 years. He will have long years of service. The Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospectus. There is also dispute on the multiplier adopted. The counsel for the appellants pleads that multiplier is marginally less. It should be 15 instead of 14. 6. The deceased was a Helper in Irrigation Department and aged 36 years. He will have long years of service. The Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospectus. There is also dispute on the multiplier adopted. The counsel for the appellants pleads that multiplier is marginally less. It should be 15 instead of 14. 6. Taking note of age of deceased who was 36 years old and the fact that there are seven dependants, the income fixed at Rs. 6000/- per month should be high and include future prospect, in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in case titled Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in 2009 (3) Supreme 487 . The claimants will be entitled to seek enhancement of income by 50%. Therefore, the income will be Rs. 9000/- (Rs. 6000/- + Rs. 3000/-) of which it should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependents will be Rs. 6750/- per month (Rs. 9000-Rs. 2250/-). The total loss of benefits to the dependents comes to Rs. 12,15,000/- (Rs. 6750 x 12 x 15) by adopting the correct multiplier as per the Supreme Courts decision referred to supra. 7. Since the appellant have restricted their claim to Rs. 11,72,000/-, the appeal is allowed to that extent. The award of Tribunal in an amount of Rs. 6,92,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 11,72,000/- accordingly. Enhanced award will suffer interest @ 7.5% per annum as ordered by the Tribunal. 8. Appeal is allowed enhancing the award of the Tribunal.