Hon'ble MOOLCHANDANI, J.—By judgment dated 03rd February 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat in MACT Case No.19/1999, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,82,000/- with interest in favour of the appellants. The appellants, feeling aggrieved with the assessment of compensation, have come up through the appeal at hand under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement. 2. Brief facts relating to the accident reveal that on 03rd January 1999 Deepa Ram (deceased) was riding his M80 from village Ranawas to village Gudaramsingh plying his vehicle on correct side. Devi Singh, driver of Bus No.RJ22-P-0165, driving the bus negligently with high speed came from front and dashed Deepa Ram, resultantly he died on the spot. An FIR No.1/1999 was lodged with Police Station, Siriyari and charge-sheet was filed against Devi Singh under sections 279, 304A IPC. 3. Claimants filed a motor accident petition before the Tribunal, which passed the impugned award on 03rd February 2001. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier in lower side and instead of multiplier of 13 the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 18 since the deceased was only of 28 years old. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-RSRTC has submitted that in view of Smt. Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & others – MACD 2009 (SC) 353 = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), the Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier. Moreover, income of the deceased was also not proved. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference, being correct. So, appeal be not accepted. 5. Main contention, which has been raised by the appellants solely adverted towards multiplier and it was submitted that the deceased was 28 years old, so the multiplier must have been of 18 in place of 13. 6. On perusal of the material available on record and on examining the impugned award, it has been found that the learned Tribunal has in para 3 observed that the deceased was 28 years old, his monthly income is determined to Rs.1500/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the income, dependency of Rs.1000/- per month has been adjudicated. 6. On perusal of the material available on record and on examining the impugned award, it has been found that the learned Tribunal has in para 3 observed that the deceased was 28 years old, his monthly income is determined to Rs.1500/- and after deducting 1/3rd of the income, dependency of Rs.1000/- per month has been adjudicated. Accordingly, annual dependency has been termed to be Rs.12000/- and applying multiplier of 13, total compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- has been awarded, apart from it, Rs.25000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and Rs.1000/- has been awarded for conveyance. As such, a total sum of Rs.1,82,000/- has been awarded. 7. The claimant-appellant Sukhiya Devi widow of deceased Deepa Ram while appearing as a witness has stated that her husband Deepa Ram died of an accident about quarter and two years ago and because of her husband's demise she incurred expenses of Rs.12000/- to Rs.15000/- on 'ganga-prasadi'. Deepa Ram was 28 years of age at the time of demise. She has further stated that her husband was a skilled mason of house construction and was earning Rs.160-170 per day. She also stated that she has got three children namely daughter Chandra aged 8 years, daughter Nenu Devi aged 6 years and son Dilip Kumar 4 years. She also stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law also live with them. She has further narrated that she has been arranging house-hold expenses from out of Rs.50,000/- which she has obtained from court. All her three children are studying. She has suffered mental and physical agony owing to mishap of her spouse. She has also corroborated all the documents from Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 12. She has also stated an important fact that Narayan (an eye witness) had conveyed her that he was also travelling by the same bus which caused accident and has filed a claim for Rs.29,34,000/-. Another witness AW1 Narayan has apprised himself as an eye-witness and has stated that Deepa Ram and he worked together, he knows Deepa Ram, adding having been witnessing the accident, he has further stated that Deepa Ram was coming from front side on his M80 and he was sitting on front seats of the bus. Driver of the bus Devi Singh drove the vehicle in a fast and negligent way and collided with Deepa Ram's vehicle. Deepa Ram fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Driver of the bus Devi Singh drove the vehicle in a fast and negligent way and collided with Deepa Ram's vehicle. Deepa Ram fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. 8. AW2 Sukhiya widow of the deceased has clearly stated that her husband Deepa Ram was 28 years old at the time of the accident. Exhibit 4 post-mortem report does also have a mention of 28 years of age. Uncontroverted evidence has been given with respect to dependents of the deceased being six, namely-Sukhiya Devi widow of the deceased, Chandra Devi, Nenu Devi and Dilip Kumar siblings and claimant-appellants No.5 and 6-Anchi Devi and Pukha Ram being parents. 9. Claimant Sukhiya Devi widow of the deceased has specifically mentioned that her husband was earning Rs.160-170 per day and used to render Rs.5000/- per month after deducting expenses by which she was incurring house-hold expenses, the Tribunal has decided the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month but the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future earning. 10. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the methodology of multiplier has laid down in para 19 of the judgment: “19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie ( 2005(10) SCC 720 ), this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya ( 2005(6) SCC 236 ) and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala ( 2006(6) SCC 249 ). This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya ( 2005(6) SCC 236 ) and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala ( 2006(6) SCC 249 ). The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years) : Age of the deceased Multi- plier scale as envisaged in Susamma Thomas Multi-plier scale as adopted by Trilok Chandra Multi-plier scale in Trilok Chandra as clarified in Charlie Multiplier specified in second column the Table in II Schedule to MV Act Multiplier actually used in Second in Schedule to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of compensation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Upto 15 yrs - - 15 20 15 to 20 yrs. 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 yrs. 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 yrs. 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35 yrs. 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 yrs. 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 yrs. 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 yrs. 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 yrs. 9 11 11 11 10 56 to 60 yrs. 8 10 09 8 8 61 to 65 yrs. 6 08 07 5 6 Above 65 yrs. 5 05 05 5 5 11. With respect to quantification and damages applicable for future prospects, it has been observed by a three-judges Bench of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain & anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & ors.- 2015 (1) RAR 157 (SC) = 2015(3) RLW 2021 (SC): 8. On the issue of deduction towards personal and living expenses in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), at paragraph-31, it was held that: “31. … In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. … In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.” As far as future prospect are concerned, in Rajesh & ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. - (2013) 9 SCC 54 = 2014(2) RLW 1185 (SC), a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. To quote: “8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. The deceased being of the age of 30 years, 50% is the required addition.” 12. In Reshma Kumari & ors. vs. Madan Mohan & anr. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. The deceased being of the age of 30 years, 50% is the required addition.” 12. In Reshma Kumari & ors. vs. Madan Mohan & anr. - (2013) 9 SCC 65 = 2010(1) RLW 361 (SC), the Apex Court held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to age of the deceased and not of the dependents and the correct use of multiplicand has also been enunciated. 13. In Sarla Verma's case, the question of deduction towards personal expenses was also considered by the Supreme Court and while dealing with this aspect, the Apex Court has laid down in para 14 as under: “14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 14. Thus, in case under hand, the deceased was 28 years of age, having six dependents namely- Sukhiya Devi widow of the deceased, Chandra Devi, Nenu Devi and Dilip Kumar siblings and Anchi Devi, Pukha Ram parents of deceased. In view of the aforesaid verdicts and taking help and guidance from the law laid down in precedents on the subject under consideration, taking age of the deceased 28 years, multiplicand of 17 is applicable. The monthly income of Rs.1500/-, which has been determined by the Tribunal, is to be aided with 50% on future prospect in view of law laid down in Rajesh & ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. The monthly income of Rs.1500/-, which has been determined by the Tribunal, is to be aided with 50% on future prospect in view of law laid down in Rajesh & ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & ors. (supra), thus, the income and award is to be computed as under: Monthly income of the deceased (Rs.1500/-) plus 50% future prospects (prospective enhancement) = (Rs.1500+Rs.750=Rs.2250 This comes to annual income = Rs.2250x12= Rs.27,000/- Out of this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses, which comes to: Rs.(27000-6750)= Rs.20,250/- On this sum, multiplier of 17 is applicable, as such, this amount comes to : Rs.20,250x17=Rs.3,44,250/- Accordingly, the total compensation is calculated under the applicable heads as under: S. No. PARTICULARS COMPENSATION AMOUNT 1 Loss of dependency Rs.3,44,250/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- 3 Loss of love & affection to children & parents Rs.50,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- TOTAL Rs.4,99,250/- The Tribunal has awarded interest of 12% per annum on the award, which is modified to 9% per annum. Accordingly, aforesaid amount of compensation will fetch interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment. Accident relates back to the year 1999, during course of dependency all three minor claimant-siblings would have naturally attained majority though nothing has been submitted on this count during the course of arguments. 15. Thus, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,99,250/- and the impugned award is modified as above.The amount already paid in terms of award/interim award shall be adjusted. Claimant-appellants Smt Anchi Devi and Pukha Ram each will get Rs.1,50,000/- out of aforesaid compensation and rest of the amount shall equally be distributed amongst claimants-widow and three children. Respondent No.3- United India Insurance Company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation within two months from today. Appellant-claimants will be at liberty to approach before the Tribunal for disbursement of the aforesaid compensation award accordingly. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as to costs.