JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present appeal the dispute only pertains to quantum of compensation and, therefore, presence of respondent No. 4 is not necessary. 2. In view of the submissions made, the requirement of service on respondent No. 4 is dispensed with. 3. At the request of learned counsel for the appellant the appeal is finally heard. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.4.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Udaipur (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,40,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing application i.e 23.3.2010 5. The application for compensation was filed by the parents of one Mohabbat Singh, inter alia, with the averments that deceased was traveling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider on 30.12.2009, when the offending truck being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to Mohabbat Singh to which he succumbed. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,41,500/- was claimed. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, while assessing the quantum of compensation, came to the conclusion that deceased was aged 20 years, was unmarried and based on the age of the parents applied multiplier of 15, after assessing his annual income at Rs. 36,000/-, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and added 50% towards future prospects, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love & affection and in all awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of compensation 50% towards future prospects to the claimants, when the deceased was a self-employed person, is excessive and is contrary to the Larger Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi: SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017 and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified accordingly. 8. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the claimants. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the Larger Bench reference, inter alia, laid down as under:— “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:— (i) …………. (ii) …………. (iii) ..………. 8. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the claimants. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the Larger Bench reference, inter alia, laid down as under:— “61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:— (i) …………. (ii) …………. (iii) ..………. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) ………… (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) ………… 10. From the perusal of the above conclusion, while the claimatns would be entitled to future prospects at 40% of the income, as the Tribunal has applied multiplier based on he age of the claimants, the same has to be applied as per the age of the deceased, which in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 would be 18. 11. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 18,000 × 18 = 3,24,000 + 1,29,600 = 4,53,600/- for loss of income. 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards conventional heads, which does not call for any interference and, therefore, the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 4,88,600/- instead of Rs. 4,40,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as the claimants have not filed any cross objections, compensation cannot be enhanced. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh: 2003 ACJ 12, Niggamma v. United India Insurance Co. 4,88,600/- instead of Rs. 4,40,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as the claimants have not filed any cross objections, compensation cannot be enhanced. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh: 2003 ACJ 12, Niggamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: 2009 ACJ 2000 and Savita v. Bindar Singh: 2014 ACJ 1261 has laid down that the Court is required to determine ‘just compensation’ under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and even in absence of a cross objection/cross appeal, the compensation can be enhanced, as such the submissions made in this regard have no substance. 15. In view thereof, the appeal filed by the appellant - Insurance Company is disposed of. Exercising power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC the award dated 20.4.2015 is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 4,40,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,88,600/-. On the enhanced amount of compensation, interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e 23.3.2010 till the date of actual payment, be paid by the appellant - Insurance Company. The amount in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal be paid in the saving bank account of the claimants. 16. The enhanced amount along with interest be deposited by the appellant - Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. 17. As the claimants have not appeared, a certified copy of the judgment be sent to the claimants by the office of this Court.