L.D. Khatri, for Respondent No.3 Hon'ble MOOLCHANDANI, J.—This appeal has been directed against the award dated 6.1.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Misc. Case No.240/1995. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,91,000/- with interest in favour of appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the assessment of compensation, the appellants have come up through this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement. 3. While addressing the court, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has passed the impugned award erroneously. Deceased was a skilled mason and earning Rs.2600/- per month but the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the evidence adduced. AW-1 Reva son of the deceased was earning Rs.50/- per day but the Tribunal has wrongly determined deceased's son's earning as of deceased victim, whereas the deceased was a skilled labour and the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced in this respect. He was 40 years of age but the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the age of the deceased being 45 years. Relying upon judgment of Sarla Devi, learned counsel has submitted that multiplier of 16 had to be applied and deduction towards personal expenses to the tune of 1/4th of the income could have been deducted. There are 6 dependents of deceased and the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium, pain and suffering and other heads has also been awarded on low side. Learned counsel has further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not granting award towards future income and future prospects, so the appeal be allowed and award be enhanced. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 insurance company stated that the Tribunal has passed correct award and has not committed any error. Multiplier of 15 is appropriate because deceased was 45 years old and this age factor has been mentioned in the autopsy report. There was no other document establishing age of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality, so the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for both the sides, examined the impugned award and material available on the record. 5. There was no other document establishing age of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality, so the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for both the sides, examined the impugned award and material available on the record. 5. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/- and the Tribunal has assessed Rs.50/- per day as income of the deceased, which has been calculated to be of Rs.1500/- from which Rs.500/- has been deducted towards personal expenses and dependency of Rs.1,000/- per month has been assessed and on this basis the annual income has been calculated to be of Rs.12,000/- and a multiplier of 15 has been applied. Besides Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards deprivation of love and affection and Rs.1,000/- as funeral expenses as such an award of Rs.1,91,000/- has been awarded. 6. Coming to the evidence regarding the income of the deceased AW-1 Reva, male sibling of deceased Velaram has said that his father Velaram, died in an accident, was 40 years of age at the time of death. He has further said that his father was engaged in construction of houses and was earning Rs.120/- daily which comes to Rs.3600/- per month. This witness has also asserted that he too was engaged in labour last year and was earning Rs.50/- per day. AW-2 Hidu has also stated that Velaram was of 40 years of old and was doing work of house construction at Revdhar and Abu Road. 7. The memorandum of the petition does have a recital that the deceased Velaram was engaged in house construction and labour and was earning Rs.3500/- per month. The accident relates way back to October 1995 which is about 20 years back from adays. AW-1 Reva who is none else but son of the deceased, has said that he too was getting Rs.50/- per day while doing labour. Velaram has also been shown to be doing labour of house construction and building construction in the memorandum of petition. Learned Tribunal has assessed daily income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day which comes to Rs.1500/- per month but the Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future prospects and if future prospects of 50% are added then the income comes to Rs.75/- per day. Learned Tribunal has assessed daily income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day which comes to Rs.1500/- per month but the Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future prospects and if future prospects of 50% are added then the income comes to Rs.75/- per day. Age of the deceased is mentioned to be of 45 years on Exhibit 10 post mortem report and there is no other evidence available on the record so same is taken to calculate the multiplicand. 8. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the learned Tribunal has calculated and computed the damages erroneously. 9. In Munna Lal Jain's case reported in 2015 DNJ (SC) 589 = 2015(3) RLW 2021 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 as under:- “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 Devi's case reported in 2008-9 (Supp.) RAR 1 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 19, as under:- “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 = RLW 2005(3) SC 390) and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala ( 2006(6) SCC 249 = RLW 2006(4) SC 3176). The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas (RLW 1995(2) SC 19), Trilok Chandra (RLW 1996(2) SC 130) 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):” 11. In the case of Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. reported in MACD 2013 (SC) 186 = 2014(2) RLW 1185 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras No.11 and 12 as under:- “11. Since the Court in Santosh Devi's case (2012) 6 SCC 421 = 2012(3) RLW 2023 (SC), actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma's case (2009) 6 SCC 121 and to make it applicable also to 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. 12. In Sarla Verma's case, compensation towards loss of consortium and least amount of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expense has also been awarded. 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. 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.” In para 19 of this verdict table of multiplier in consonance to the age has also been enumerated and for age group of 41 to 45, this is enunciated to be of 15. In Munnalal Jain and Anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2015(1) RAR 157 (SC) = 2015(3) RLW 2021 (SC) law for 50% increase towards future prospects of income has also been laid down. 14. On the basis of discussions and taking guidance from the precedents and evidence enumerated above, this Court is of the view to modify the award under the following heads hereinunder:- S. No Particulars Compensation amount 1 Daily income of the deceased Rs.50+50% increase towards future prospects i.e. 50+25=75.00 Rs.75x30=2250x12 = 27,000 P.A. 27000X15 (on the basis of multiplier of 15) = 4,05,000 Less personal expenses 1/4 % of the income =(-)1,01,250 Rs.4,05,0000 (-) 1,01,250 = 3,03,750 3,03,750 2 Loss of consortium 50,000 3 Loss of love and affection 25,000 4 Funeral expenses 10,000 Total Rs. 3,88,750 The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified as aforesaid and the same will fetch interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till actual date of payment. 15. Thus, the appellants are entitled for compensation to tune of Rs.3,88,750/-. The amount already paid in terms of the interim award shall be adjusted. The presentation of the petition relates to the year 1995 and during the course of pendency, obviously all the claimants would have attained majority. The respondent No.3 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount with interest as above within two months from today through bank draft in favour of the claimants or deposit the same with the Tribunal. The presentation of the petition relates to the year 1995 and during the course of pendency, obviously all the claimants would have attained majority. The respondent No.3 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount with interest as above within two months from today through bank draft in favour of the claimants or deposit the same with the Tribunal. The claimants will be at the liberty to receive and seek disbursement of the award amount from the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as to costs.