ORDER : Amitav K. Gupta, J. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation award of Rs. 1,52,000/- as per judgment dated 08/08/2012, in Claim case no. No.108/2005, passed by the 5th District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as Tribunal) to be paid to the claimants/appellants by the respondent/opposite party no.2, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2. Mr. Shahid Khan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month on the basis of minimum wages as prevalent in the year 2005, since the deceased Prakash Prasad Keshri died on 23.5.2005 when the jeep on which the deceased was travelling as a passenger turned turtle. It is argued that the deceased was a skilled worker (mistri) employed in a jewellery shop and the Tribunal has erred by not considering and adding the future prospects to the income of the deceased as per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) JCR 17 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It is urged that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 15 on the basis of the age of the dependent father. It is submitted that compensation should have been computed by applying the multiplier of 18 since deceased was aged 21, as per the decision in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2012) 4 SC 116. On the above grounds learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the compensation awarded should be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurance company has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal. That the claimants have not produced any chit of paper in proof of the actual earning of the deceased neither have they examined the owner of the jewellery shop nor mentioned the name of the shop. In the absence of any document regarding the income the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income at Rs. That the claimants have not produced any chit of paper in proof of the actual earning of the deceased neither have they examined the owner of the jewellery shop nor mentioned the name of the shop. In the absence of any document regarding the income the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum That in view of the ratio of Sarla Verma (supra) the age of the parents of the deceased is applicable and the multiplier of 15 is attracted in view of the age of the dependent parents. That in-fact the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the income as the expenses the deceased would have spent on himself whereas 50% of the income should have been deducted since the deceased was a bachelor. It is contended that the compensation is just and reasonable and it does not require any interference by this Court. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order and the materials on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the court below should have considered the future prospects of the deceased, is not tenable as it is evident from the facts of the case that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the deceased was a skilled worker or he had a fixed income or was a salaried person. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) it has been held that the future prospects can be considered when the deceased has a fixed income or is a salaried person or an income tax payee. Though the claimants failed to adduce any evidence that the deceased was gainfully employed, however, the Tribunal should have assessed income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent during the relevant period, instead of assessing the income on the basis of notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It should have assessed the annual income taking into the prevalent minimum wages and it will be justified to assess the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month on the basis of minimum wages. Thus the annual income of the deceased is assessed 4,000 x 12 = 48,000/-. It is not disputed that the deceased was a bachelor, hence 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the loss of annual dependency is assessed at Rs. 24,000/-. 4,000/- per month on the basis of minimum wages. Thus the annual income of the deceased is assessed 4,000 x 12 = 48,000/-. It is not disputed that the deceased was a bachelor, hence 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the loss of annual dependency is assessed at Rs. 24,000/-. The age of the deceased was 21 years and in view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) the multiplier applicable is 18, accordingly, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 24,000 x 18 = Rs. 4,32,000/- and a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- is provided towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Thus, the total loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 4,32,000 + 50,000 = 4,82,000/-. The aforesaid amount is to be paid with interest in terms of the award and judgment of the Tribunal after deducting the amount if any paid as interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 5. The respondent-insurance company shall pay the aforesaid amount with interest as per the judgment/award of the Tribunal in the ensuing Lok Adalat i.e. on 14.5.2016. 6. With the said directions and observations the award/judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as noted above. 7. In the result this appeal is hereby allowed to that extent. Appeal allowed.