JUDGMENT : Appeal by the claimants legal representatives of the deceased challenging the judgment and award dated 6.02.2015 in MVC No.1502/2012 passed by the MACT and First Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. 2. It is the case of the appellants that they are legal representatives of deceased Baby P.C., who sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.05.2012 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.13,66,856/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and sought to enhance the same. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 sought to dismiss the appeal as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. 6. It is contended that on 21.05.2012 the husband of appellant No.1 Baby P.C., was driving the lorry from Shirur towards Mangaluru by loading prawns in the said lorry and when he reached near Irodi of Udupi Taluk, National Highway-66 at 10.40 pm., lorry bearing No.K.A.19/C-3525 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against lorry which was driven by her husband Baby P.C. Due to the impact husband of appellant No.1 succumbed to the injuries on the spot and dead body was shifted to Primary Health Centre of Sasthana. Admittedly, the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased who has no income after the death of her husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 even though they have attained majority, they are studying in school and college and petitioner No.4 being the aged mother of the deceased and all the petitioners were depending upon the income of the deceased for their livelihood. The only source of earning for the livelihood of the petitioners was income of the deceased during his lifetime. The Tribunal has erroneously denied the future prospectus on the ground that the deceased was aged 54 years. In the age group of 5060 years 10% future prospects has to be added. Hence, salary of the deceased comes to Rs.15522 (Rs.14111+1411). Therefore, the loss of dependency of the petitioners can be computed as 15,36,678 (Rs.15,522x3/4x11x12) as against Rs.12,41,586. The Tribunal has erroneously denied the future prospectus on the ground that the deceased was aged 54 years. In the age group of 5060 years 10% future prospects has to be added. Hence, salary of the deceased comes to Rs.15522 (Rs.14111+1411). Therefore, the loss of dependency of the petitioners can be computed as 15,36,678 (Rs.15,522x3/4x11x12) as against Rs.12,41,586. It is stated that after the accident the dead body was shifted to their native place and performed obsequies and funeral ceremony by spending huge amount. The first appellant being the wife of the deceased lost her companion in her young age and she is suffering from mental agony and the appellant Nos.2 to 4 being the children and mother of the deceased have lost love and affection of the deceased. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.70,000/-is enhanced towards other heads in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 06.02.2015 passed by the MACT and First Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., is hereby modified holding that the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,31,678/- as against Rs.13,66,856 awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be disbursed to the claimants-appellants No.1 to 4 as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal by depositing the compensation amount in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years and the remaining amount is ordered to be released to the petitioners with accrued interest.