JUDGMENT S. G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ajay R. Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Mohmedsaif Hakim for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2. The appellant herein is original opponent No.3 before the M.A.C.T., Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1145 of 2006. Such claim petition was preferred by present respondents No.1 and 2 against respondents No.3, 4 and appellant, being driver, owner and insurer of vehicle in question, which is involved in the accident. 3. It is undisputed fact that on 29.5.2006, son of original claimant No.1 and brother of claimant No.2, namely, Harishanker was travelling as a pillion rider with his friend, namely, Mukeshbhai. It is also undisputed fact that when they reached near Village Sangama, respondent No.3 had dashed his vehicle No.GJ-6Y-5726 on backside of the motorcycle of victim, which resulted into fatal injuries to the victim. Because of such untimely death of a young man of 22 years, as claimed in the petition, petitioners have preferred an application claiming Rs. 4,79,700/- as compensation, contending that since deceased was serving with one Company, namely, Paper Heritage at Akota and earning Rs. 3,300/- p.m., they are entitled to such amount of compensation. 4. After allowing both the sides to adduce evidence, the Tribunal has by impugned judgment and award dated 23.9.2016, awarded total amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- with 9% interest to be paid by all the opponents jointly and severally to the claimants. However, it is undisputed fact that pending trial, the mother of the deceased being claimant No.1, namely, Parvatiben Gaurshankar Awasthi has expired on 2.6.2010. Copy of death certificate is produced on record with list at Exh.17, so as to amend the cause-title in petition and Tribunal has allowed such application. Thereby, on the date of award, the only claimant is claimant No.2 brother of the deceased. He has filed his affidavit as examination-in-chief at Exh.16. Except his oral evidence regarding incident and earning of his brother, there is no other evidence on record. When neither driver, owner nor Insurance Company has challenged such award, there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, its result and liability of Insurance Company and therefore, other documents in the form of complaint, panchnama, P.M. Note, chargesheet etc. produced on record at Exhs.24 to 29, are not much material to be discussed herein, so also to disclose the minute details of all such facts. 5. produced on record at Exhs.24 to 29, are not much material to be discussed herein, so also to disclose the minute details of all such facts. 5. The main contention in the appeal by the appellant Insurance Company is two fold i.e. (1) though the mother of the deceased has expired as back as in the year 2010, the Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation as per the impugned order by considering 17 as suitable multiplier; and (2) though it is undisputed fact that deceased was unmarried and claimant is practically now only the brother, that too an earning person and thereby, though he is not dependent of the deceased, the Tribunal has failed in not deducting one-half of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses, thereby, considering only one-half income of the deceased as dependency for the claimants. 6. Whereas, learned advocate for the original claimant being respondent No.2 herein has contended that even if one-half amount of the deceased income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, the Tribunal has erred in considering only Rs. 2,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, though the claimant has deposed on oath that he was earning Rs. 5,000/-. It is also contended that even if court may not consider the income of the deceased as pleaded or stated on oath by the claimants, then atleast, income should be considered based upon minimum wages to be paid to such skilled worker at the relevant time. 7. I have perused the record and proceedings. It is quite clear and certain that the Tribunal has committed an error by not deducting one-half of the deceased income as his personal expenses when by all means, original claimants are only widow mother and aged earning brother. Therefore, in any case, the impugned order certainly needs to be modified. There is no need to have any further discussion on such issue considering the fact that it is settled legal position that when claimants are parents and when deceased victim is unmarried young person, even if he is earning, the parents are entitled to one-half of the earnings of the deceased as dependency benefit and thereby, atleast one-half income of the deceased is to be considered as his personal expenses. Thereby, when Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, it is made clear that out of the total income of the deceased, for awarding compensation to the parents, one-half income needs to be deducted, which is to be done in present case also. 8. So far as rival contention regarding earning capacity and actual earning of the deceased is concerned, considering the available details in pleadings before the Tribunal coupled with the oral evidence and the fact that except a statement by earning brother regarding income of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any evidence on record to confirm that actually deceased was serving as pleaded and he was earning as stated in pleadings as well in evidence. Therefore, when claimants have allowed the Tribunal to have some determination by guesswork to consider the earning capacity of the victim, I do not see any reason to modify such determination, because it was based upon the facts and circumstances pleaded and evidence available before the Tribunal in presence of the claimants. Therefore, though it is vehemently submitted by learned advocate for respondent No.2 that minimum wages is to be considered, the fact remains that the Tribunal has considered Rs. 2,000/- as earning capacity or actual earning of a young man of 20 to 22 years and more particularly, though there is no evidence that he is having fixed salary or skilled worker, Tribunal has already added 50% to such income as prospective income. Thereby, when Tribunal has considered Rs. 3,000/- as total earning capacity of the deceased, I do not see any reason to modify such determination for calculating the quantum of compensation that may be payable to the claimant, who is practically, now only the earning brother and not the parents of deceased. 9. So far as multiplier to be applied in such cases are concerned, the rival contentions are absolutely on different age of the factual details inasmuch as, as per the Insurance Company, it should not be more than 4 5 years when mother of the victim has expired after four years. Whereas, learned advocate for the claimant is pressing to consider it as per the age of the deceased when Tribunal has considered the multiplier as 17. Whereas, learned advocate for the claimant is pressing to consider it as per the age of the deceased when Tribunal has considered the multiplier as 17. It is undisputed fact that compensation is payable on the date of accident or atleast earliest thereafter and therefore, practically, actual date of trial or award passed by the Tribunal is not much material for considering the quantum of compensation. Therefore, if compensation is awarded to the claimants, if not immediately, but then at the earliest after the incident, then probably, there would be no issue, which is raised at present, that because of the death of mother, now, the brother is not entitled to full set of compensation. It is equally clear that if such amount is awarded at the earliest, then, that awarded amount would be available to other legal heirs of the victim or parents as successor/s. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that therefore, though claimants are entitled to substantial amount of compensation, the fact remains that by all means, now, when there is neither of the parent alive and thereby, there is no legal heir of Class-I of the deceased victim, and when remaining claimant brother is an earning person and thereby, when he is not dependent, it would be appropriate to consider the multiplier based upon the age of the parents rather than the age of the victim. Therefore, considering the factual details and facts and circumstances emerging on record of this case, it would be appropriate to reduce the multiplier from 17 to 14. However, it is made clear that such determination is purely based upon the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. In view of above discussion, now, the claimant is entitled to compensation as under:- Considering Rs. 2,000 as monthly income (+) Rs. 1,000 towards 50% prospective income and thereby, Rs. 3000/- as average earning capacity of the deceased, out of which, one-half i.e. Rs. 1,500/- is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereby, claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,500/- as monthly loss of income for the death of the victim. As discussed herein above, considering 14 as suitable multiplier, would result into total amount of Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rs.1,500 x 12 x 14) as compensation for future loss. 1,500/- is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereby, claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,500/- as monthly loss of income for the death of the victim. As discussed herein above, considering 14 as suitable multiplier, would result into total amount of Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rs.1,500 x 12 x 14) as compensation for future loss. Since claimant was initially only the mother and now, only the brother, he is not entitled to any award towards consortium and considering the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 3 GLH 536, claimant is entitled to in all Rs. 30,000/- in aggregate towards different conventional heads viz. loss of estate and funeral expenses etc. Thereby, claimant is entitled to in all Rs. 2,82,000/- towards compensation. 11. In view of above discussion, the award needs to be modified accordingly, so as to confirm that instead of Rs. 4,20,000/-, now, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 2,82,000/- with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till its realisation with cost, jointly from all the original opponents. 12. As the Insurance Company has deposited the total amount of compensation (+) interest as per the award, therefore, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to call for the difference amount from the amount invested from such award and to refund it to Insurance Company appellant herein. For the purpose, claimant shall endorse necessary signature/s to encash the FDRs by the Tribunal. 13. The order dated 22.6.2018 in Civil Application No.1 of 2017 is modified as per above direction. 14. In view of above, the present First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.