JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 20.01.2014, passed in Claim Case No. 48/2008 wherein compensation amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- with interest @ 6 % from the date of award, till actual payment has been made. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the deceased Afsar Alam had died in a road accident near Kodway village, when the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. BR-13P-9299, due to rash and negligent driving, bus overturned, which has resulted in death of the deceased (Afsar Alam). 4. The claimants/appellants, who are parents, had filed the present claim petition. 5. After considering the arguments of the parties and taking the evidence, applying the same to the issues framed by the Tribunal. It has been held that the deceased is entitled for compensation. 6. Parameters fixed by the court are as follows: Income 15,000 per annum; Loss of dependency, half of the income; Multiplier 16; 7. Compensation towards non-conventional component has not been given; Compensation towards funeral charges Rs. 2,000/- has been given and nothing has been paid towards the other components i.e. loss consortium and loss of estate. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimants has made claim that the deceased was a bright student of 17 years of age and was earning money by undertaking tuition and the income of deceased claimed by the claimants was Rs. 36,000/- per year. 9. Accordingly, the compensation has been claimed. 10. In this context, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Shivakumar M. vrs. Managing Director, Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation reported in , (2017) 5 SCC 79 from which para-5 is quoted hereunder: "No doubt, there was no evidence available with regard to the income of the appellant but there is no dispute on the fact that he was a painter by profession. The accident happened in the year 2013 when he was living in Bangalore, Karnataka. For a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece-rated work as well. The accident happened in the year 2013 when he was living in Bangalore, Karnataka. For a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece-rated work as well. That is why he made a moderate self-estimation of his income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/-" 11. Referring to the above paragraph, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that If a fair estimation is made by the claimants that should be accepted by the Tribunal under Motor Vehicle Act. In the present case, Rs.36,000/- per year is a fair estimation for a student of 17 years of age. 12. This court finds that the claim is quite reasonable and that should have been accepted by the tribunal. Accordingly, this Court accepts the same and held that the Tribunal was wrong in accepting the income of the deceased as Rs.1,250/- per month and accordingly, it is held that it should be Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per year. 13. Rest of the parameters are not in dispute. 14. Counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that the amount of compensation had already been released in the favour of the claimants. 15. Further, right to recovery has been given to the Insurance Company, from the owner of the offending vehicle. 16. Counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle is present and could not make any serious challenge. 17. Considering the annual income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per year and applying principle as laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in , (2017) 4 TAC 673, the amount of compensation is being re-calculated, as follows: Yearly income of deceased = Rs. 36,000/- Future prospect 40 % = Rs. 14,400/- Total = Rs.50,400/- Contribution to the family half of the income (as deceased was unmarried) = Rs.25,200/- Multiplier 18 (age 17 years) = Rs.25,200x18 Total loss of dependency = Rs.4,53,600/- Non-conventional components as per the Pranay Sethi''s case Rs.70,000/- Total= Rs.5,23,600/- 18. Thus, the appellants are entitled for Rs.5,23,600/- as a compensation with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of claim petition. 19. The amount already paid, shall be adjusted. 20. The appeal stands allowed. 21. Thus, the appellants are entitled for Rs.5,23,600/- as a compensation with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of claim petition. 19. The amount already paid, shall be adjusted. 20. The appeal stands allowed. 21. It is made clear that other factors including right of recovery has not been disturbed.