JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Assailing award dated 30.6.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 9-N/II of 2009 titled Darshana Devi and another vs. Rohit Sharma and others by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, appellant Insurance Company has preferred present appeal. 2. On account of death of 26 years old son of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants in a motor accident occurred on 7.12.2008, the MACT has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to the tune of Rs.4,03,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of petition till deposit of the award amount with cost of petition to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Details of awarded compensation are as under:- (i) Compensation for loss of dependency awarded Rs.388800.00/- (ii) Just and reasonable funeral compensation awarded Rs.10000.00/- (iii) Just and reasonable transportation of dead compensation awarded Rs.5000.00/- (iv) Medical compensation awarded (As no medical bills placed on record) NIL Total compensation awarded Rs. 403800.00/- 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material placed on the record. 4. Learned counsel for appellant company has referred para 38 of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121 wherein para 18 of judgment of the Apex Court passed in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996)4 SCC 362 has been quoted stating therein that selection of multiplier in all cases cannot be solely dependent upon age of deceased and where a bechelor dies at the age of 45 years and dependants are his parents then age of parents would also be relevant in choice of multiplier and thus he submitted that in present case also, deceased was 26 years of age at the time of accident, whereas his parents Darshana Devi and Prem Singh were of 55 and 60 years of age at that time and therefore learned MACT wrongly applied multiplier on the basis of age of deceased who was bachelor rather multiplier on the basis of age of his dependant parents is to be applied. 5. Aforesaid plea of appellant Insurance Company is misconceived and is contrary to the law of land. 5. Aforesaid plea of appellant Insurance Company is misconceived and is contrary to the law of land. It is now settled that selection of multiplier for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to dependants is to be based on age of deceased and not at the age of dependant (See para 15 of Amrit Bhanu Shali vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2012)11 SCC 738 ). Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in case Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013)9 SCC 65 , after considering Sarla Verma’s case cited supra, has held that multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of deceased. The said ratio of law has been reiterated by another three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015)6 SCC 347 . 6. In view of pronouncement of the Apex Court in cases cited supra, plea of appellant Insurance Company is not sustainable. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18 on the basis of age of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for appellant has also contended that interest at the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the MACT is on higher side and it should have been according to prevailing rate of interest in the Nationalized Banks which at the time of filing of petition was not more than 6% and therefore, he pleaded that rate of interest deserves to be decreased from 9% to 6% in present case. He has also relied upon judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sukhiya Bail and others 2010 ACJ 2001 wherein interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of petition was awarded. 8. He has also relied upon judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sukhiya Bail and others 2010 ACJ 2001 wherein interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of petition was awarded. 8. Learned counsel for claimants has referred judgment of the Apex court in case Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another 2014 ACJ 526 , wherein it has been held that awarding of rate of interest is option for Tribunals and Courts after taking into consideration the rate of interest allowed by the Apex Court in similar cases and other factors such as inflation, change in economy, policy adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and period since when the case is pending and thus, it is contended that rate of interest in banks is not sole criteria for determining the rate of interest to be awarded by the MACT. Learned counsel has also referred the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Neerupam Mohan Mathur vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2013 ACJ 2122 (SC), Jiju Kuruvila and others vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others 2013 ACJ 2141 (SC) and Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another 2014 ACJ 526 (SC) wherein interest at the rate of 12% for accidents occurred in 1987, 1990 and 1999 has been awarded. Based on these pronouncements, grant of interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been pleaded. The Apex Court in V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and another reported in 2014 ACJ 1441 and Anjani Singh and others vs. Salauddin and others reported in 2014 ACJ 1565 has awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of petition. In present case accident had occurred in the year 2008. Petition was filed in the year 2009 and was decided on 30.6.2012. Whereafter present appeal has been preferred by appellant Insurance Company and now we are in 2017. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for parties and case law referred by them and also the time span from date of accident till date, I am of considered view that rate of interest awarded by the MACT does not warrant any interference. 9. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for parties and case law referred by them and also the time span from date of accident till date, I am of considered view that rate of interest awarded by the MACT does not warrant any interference. 9. Learned counsel for claimants submitted that though respondents/claimants have not questioned adequacy of compensation either by filing independent appeal or by filing cross objections in present appeal, however, this Court is competent to enhance the compensation awarded by the MACT so as to ensure award of just compensation in favour of respondents/claimants. He has referred paras 15 and 19 of judgment passed by this Court in Ratna Devi vs. Rajwanti Devi and others and other connected matters reported in Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 198 wherein referring judgment of this Court in case United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Kulwant Kaur, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 174 as well as the Apex Court in case A.P.S.R.T.C. and another vs. M. Ramadevi and others (2008)3 SCC 379 it has been reiterated that Tribunal as well as Appellate Court is within the jurisdiction to enhance the compensation and grant more than what is claimed and the Appellate Court has jurisdiction and power in enhancing the compensation despite the fact that claimants had not questioned the adequacy of compensation. 10. Relying upon Munna Lal Jain’s case learned counsel for claimants/respondents has submitted that future prospects of deceased has not been considered and added at the time of assessing the amount of compensation in present case as the Apex Court has held that in case of self employed persons also, if deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of deceased while computing future prospects. In Munna Lal Jain’s case, age of deceased was 30 years and 50% of his income was added as future prospects for the calculation of amount of compensation. In present case, deceased was self employed person and his monthly income by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been considered as Rs.3600/- per month. By adding 50% of it, it would become Rs.5400/-. After deducting 50% of said amount towards personal expenses, dependency for the purpose of calculation of compensation would be Rs.2700/-. As per Schedule appended, multiplier from the age 25 to 30 years would be 18. Therefore, compensation for loss of dependency will be Rs. By adding 50% of it, it would become Rs.5400/-. After deducting 50% of said amount towards personal expenses, dependency for the purpose of calculation of compensation would be Rs.2700/-. As per Schedule appended, multiplier from the age 25 to 30 years would be 18. Therefore, compensation for loss of dependency will be Rs. 5,83,200/- (2700 X 12 X 18). 11. In view of aforesaid settled position, I am of the opinion that MACT has erred by not adding future prospects while determining amount of compensation as required on the basis of principles settled by the Apex Court and this Court has power of enhance the compensation in order to award just compensation to the respondents/claimants in present appeal. 12. It is submitted on behalf of respondents/claimants that no compensation for loss of love and affection has been awarded and in present case parents have lost their 26 years old young son and though such a big loss cannot be compensated in terms of money, however, it would be in the interest of justice to award Rs. 1 lac to claimants for loss of love and affection as has been awarded/upheld by the Apex Court in numerous cases including Jiju Kuruvila and others vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others 2013 ACJ 2141 (wife, children and mother Rs.1,00,000/-), M. Mansoor and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another 2013 ACJ 2849 (parents Rs.1,00,000/-) and Anjani Singh and others vs. Salauddin and others 2014 ACJ 1565 (wife, three children and parents Rs.1,00,000/-). 13. So far as awarding compensation on account of loss of love and affection is concerned, neither in claim petition nor in evidence placed on record, it has been pleaded that deceased was only son of claimants, rather it has come in evidence of PW2 Darshana Devi claimant (mother of deceased) that couple was blessed with two sons and three daughters. Though respondents/claimants are still entitled for compensation on account of loss of love and affection and however keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection of son. 14. Though respondents/claimants are still entitled for compensation on account of loss of love and affection and however keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection of son. 14. In view of above discussion, respondents/claimants shall be entitled for compensation as under:- (i) Compensation for loss of dependency awarded (2700X12X18) Rs.583,200/- (ii) Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/- (iii) Just and reasonable funeral compensation awarded Rs.10,000/- (iv) Just & reasonable transportation of dead body compensation Rs.5,000/- (v) Medical compensation awarded (As no medical bills placed on record) NIL Total compensation awarded Rs. 6,48,200/- (Rupees six lacs forty eight thousand two hundred only) In addition respondents/claimants shall also be entitled for interest on amount of compensation @ 9% per annum w.e.f. filing of petition till full and final payment with costs Rs. 2000/- as awarded by the MACT. 15. No other point raised or urged. In view of above discussion, present appeal is disposed of, in above terms. Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit difference of compensation amount in Registry of this Court on or before 31.8.2017. Record of the MACT concerned be sent back forthwith. Appeal stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous applications, if any.