JUDGMENT : Saral Srivastava, J. 1. We have heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.C. Nigam, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 2. The claimants-appellants have come up in the present appeal with a prayer for enhancement of the compensation. 3. The case of the claimants-appellants was that on 05.08.1994, one Mohd. Juvaid was hit by Truck No. U.R.N. 9492 while he was going to school. Mohd. Juvaid was the only son of the claimants-appellants. He was aged about 11 years, and was a student of Class-VI. The claimants-appellants prayed for a compensation of Rs.16,75,000/- . 4. The insurance company contested the claim petition contending therein that the compensation prayed for is highly excessive and exorbitant. 5. The owner and the driver of the truck filed written statement denying their liability to pay any compensation. 6. On the basis of the pleadings between the parties. The Tribunal framed as many as 7 issues. In the present appeal, the contest is only with regard to the issue no. 2 relating to quantification of compensation. 7. The Tribunal after considering various aspects of the matter assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal held the dependency of the parents upon the income of deceased to be 1/3rd i.e., Rs.8,000/- per annum; and thereafter applied the multiplier of 8 corresponding to the age of parents, and awarded Rs.64,000/- towards pecuniary loss. The Tribunal further, awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation awarded was Rs.79,000/-. The Tribunal awarded 12% interest on the awarded amount. 8. Challenging the quantification of compensation, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law in applying the multiplier of 8 corresponding to the age of parents, whereas, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15 corresponding to the age of the deceased. The counsel for the appellant further submits that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore ½ should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in computing the compensation. 9. The counsel for the appellant further submits that the deceased was a bachelor and therefore ½ should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in computing the compensation. 9. He further submits that once the income of the deceased have been assessed treating the deceased to be unemployed or non earning person, the appellants are also entitled for future prospect, inasmuch as, the child after attaining the age of majority, must be engaged in some kind of employment to earn his livelihood. Thus, if the deceased was engaged in any kind of employment, there was always likelihood of increase in the income of the deceased and therefore, future prospect theory should be attracted in the present case. The submission is that the claimants are entitled for 40% future prospect in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (4) UPLBEC 2633 (S.C.). 10. The last submission of the counsel for the appellant is that very meager amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards loss of estate, and no amount has been awarded towards funeral expenses. 11. The counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand has urged that the deceased was a minor, and therefore, the Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier corresponding to the age of the parents. 12. On the issue of future prospect, he submits that no assumption can be made as regard the income of minors, and therefore, the theory of future prospect is not attracted in the case of minor. He submits that the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra) nowhere spells out that the theory of future prospect is also attracted in the case of minor. Thus, his submission is that the theory of future prospect should not be stretched to a limit where there is no material to indicate that the minor could engage in any kind of employment. The counsel for the respondent lastly submits that the 12% interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, and that the compensation awarded in the instant case is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this Court. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The counsel for the respondent lastly submits that the 12% interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, and that the compensation awarded in the instant case is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this Court. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. On the issue of deduction towards personal expenses what we find is that the Tribunal on the assumption held that the deceased out of his income must have been spending 1/3rd upon himself; and out of remaining 2/3rd income, 1/3rd upon the claimants-appellants and remaining 1/3rd upon other members of the family. We find this approach of the Tribunal is erroneous, inasmuch as, it is settled law that in the case of bachelor 50% should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, we set-aside this finding of the Tribunal. We further provide that the compensation should be computed by deducting half from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased. 14. We further find that the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 8 corresponding to the age of parents, inasmuch as, the said issue is also settled by the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra). Thus, we hold that the multiplier of 15 should be applied for computing the compensation. 15. In order to appreciate the issue as to whether future prospect theory can be extended in the case of a minor, it would be necessary to have a look at principles enunciated for ascertaining the income of the minor to determine the compensation. 16. The following judgments of the Apex Court have dealt with the issue of determination of compensation in case of minors: 1. 1969 (3) SCC 64 C.K. Subramania Iyer and others Vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair and six others. 2. 2001 (8) SCC 197 Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others. 3. 2007 (11) SCC Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and others. 4. 2009 (14) SCC 1 R.K. Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal and others. 17. The Apex Court in the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer (Supra) laid down the principles governing the ascertainment of damages under Section 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accident Act (Act 13 of 1855). Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and others. 4. 2009 (14) SCC 1 R.K. Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal and others. 17. The Apex Court in the case of C.K. Subramania Iyer (Supra) laid down the principles governing the ascertainment of damages under Section 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accident Act (Act 13 of 1855). The Apex Court has held that as a general rule, the parents are entitled to recover the persons cash value of the prospective service of a deceased minor child; in addition they may receive compensation for loss of pecuniary benefits reasonable to be expected after the child attains majority. 18. The Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa (Supra), after considering various aspects regarding the family background, education of the child etc. held the contribution of the minor between the age group of 10 to 15 to the family to be Rs.24,000/- per annum ,and further held that the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Thus, the compensation towards future loss of income was awarded Rs.3,60,000/-, to which an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- was also added. Accordingly, the total compensation awarded for the death of the child between the age group of 10 to 15 was Rs. 4,10,000/-. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim (Supra) in para nos. 7 &8 of the judgment laid down the principles which are relevant for determining the compensation in case of minor. Para nos. 7 & 8 of the judgment are reproduced herein below: 7. There are some aspects of human life which are capable of monetary measurement, but the totality of human life is like the beauty of sunrise or the splendor of the stars, beyond the reach of monetary tape-measure. The determination of damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. 8. "11. The future of a child is uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of assessment of compensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of guesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevant factor would be age of parents. 8. "11. ....In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by the parents during the child's life-time. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. V. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinson said thus: " .....All that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact - there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them." (See Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. ( 2001 (8) SCC 197 ) 20. Again in the case of R.K. Malik (Supra), the apex court has laid down the principles for ascertainment of the compensation. Para 12 and 13 of the Judgment of R.K. Malik (Supra) is extracted herein below: "12. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased, inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated, multiplier is to be applied. This provides a basic figure. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased, inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated, multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of this Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 ; Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. v. K. T. Bindu, (2005) 8 SCC 473 ; T. N. State Transport Corp. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, (2005) 6 SCC 236 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patrica Jean Mahajan (2002) 6 SCC 281 . 13. The real problem that arises in the cases of death of children is that they are not earning at the time of the accident. In most of the cases they were still studying and not working. However, under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the parents, who are appellants herein, have not suffered any pecuniary loss. In fact, Loss of dependency by its very nature is awarded for prospective or future loss. ................... 21. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment held the notional income provided in the IInd Schedule, and the multiplier specified therein can form the basis for determination of pecuniary compensation for the loss of dependency in the case of minor. 22. A glance of the judgments referred hereinabove makes it crystal clear that the courts have repeatedly held that though the minor may not have any income; and there is no straitjacket formula to assess the actual loss of income in the case of a minor, yet the courts have awarded compensation to parents of the minor on the basis of notional income. 23. The Apex Court has recognized the principle of grant of future prospect in the following cases: 1. 1994(1) TAC 323 Kerala State Road Transport Vs Susamma Thomas. 2. 2009 (6) SCC 121 , Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others). 3. (2012) 6 SCC 421 Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others. 4. 2013 (9) SCC 65 Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another. 1994(1) TAC 323 Kerala State Road Transport Vs Susamma Thomas. 2. 2009 (6) SCC 121 , Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others). 3. (2012) 6 SCC 421 Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others. 4. 2013 (9) SCC 65 Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another. 5. (2013) 9 SCC 54 Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others. 6. 2017 (4) UPLBEC 2633 (S.C.). National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi. 24. In the case of Susamma Thomas (Supra), the Apex Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. Though the actual income of the deceased in the said case was Rs.1,032/- per month, but considering the evidence on record with regard to advancement in life and career the Apex Court held the income of the deceased Rs.2,000/- for the purpose of computation of the compensation. 25. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) has standardized the formula of future prospect, but restricted the grant of future prospect only to those who had a permanent job. The Apex Court further held that where the deceased was self employed or was on fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will take actual income at the time of death for the purposes of the computation of compensation, and a departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. 26. Later on, the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi (Supra) extended the theory of grant of future prospect also in cases where the deceased was self employed or had a fixed income. Paragraphs No. 17 and 18 of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi (Supra) are extracted herein below: "17. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation." 27. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra) affirmed the principle of grant of future prospect laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra). The Apex Court in the said judgment did not notice the judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Devi (Supra) regarding grant of future prospect in cases where the deceased was self employed or was on a fixed income. 28. The judgment of the Santosh Devi (Supra) was affirmed by three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh & others (Supra), the Apex Court has accepted the principle of grant of future prospect in cases where the deceased was self employed or on a fixed income. However, the judgment of Rajesh & others (Supra) did not notice the three judge judgment of Reshma Kumari (Supra) affirming the principle of grant of future prospect in case of persons who had permanent job and not to those who were self employed or were on fixed salary. 29. However, the judgment of Rajesh & others (Supra) did not notice the three judge judgment of Reshma Kumari (Supra) affirming the principle of grant of future prospect in case of persons who had permanent job and not to those who were self employed or were on fixed salary. 29. Since, the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (Supra) did not notice the judgment of Reshma Kumari (Supra), therefore, the issue as to whether, the future prospect can be granted in case of self employed or those having fixed income was referred to a larger Bench. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) approved the principle of grant of future prospect in the case of those who were self employed or on a fixed salary. Paragraphs No. 59 and 61 (iv) of Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) are extracted hereinbelow: "59. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the criterion of distinction between the two in that event would be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. One may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an incessant effort to enhance one's income for sustenance. The purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job when increases because of grant of increments and pay revision or for some other change in service conditions, there is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly, a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends to live with dynamism and move and change with the time. Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. ................................................................................................ 61. ................................................................................................ 61. (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. 30. It is relevant to mention that the courts are duty bound to grant just and proper compensation, and the courts have repeatedly held the technicalities should not come in the way to grant just and proper compensation. Now one thing needs to be noticed is that with the passage of time, cost of living index goes up, and accordingly, the notional income also increases in the same proportion. 31. In our opinion, one more aspect needs to be taken note of in granting the compensation in the case of a minor in today's world is that even if, the deceased minor belongs to a family which do not have sufficient means to provide the child good education or is not in a position to support the child to excel in carrier, yet, there are instances where the minors without having any financial support from the family have excelled in life because of their determination and will to compete in the world. The issue can also be looked into from another angle; take a case where a child could not complete studies and remain illiterate, but to survive in the world, the child after becoming major would earn his livelihood by getting engaged in some kind of employment. These are few instances which indicate that though the child at the time of death was not earning anything, but, it is certain that had he been alive, he would have been earning after attaining the age of majority in order to survive in the world. Thus, it follows that if the child had lived up to his normal age, he would have been engaged in some kind of employment, and the income of the child would also increase as the cost of living index goes up from time to time. Future prospect is a speculated potential of an individual concerning material attainments. Thus, it follows that if the child had lived up to his normal age, he would have been engaged in some kind of employment, and the income of the child would also increase as the cost of living index goes up from time to time. Future prospect is a speculated potential of an individual concerning material attainments. The longevity of life and expectation from it are higher in a minor, but is limited by the theory of probability. It is quite possible that a minor hits below expectations in later life and can also go beyond one's expectations, provided his chances of reasonable survival and longevity of life, if he does not meet an accident, are fair. This, therefore, can be assessed as a 50-50 chance which falls within the realm of a true possibility and not a mere probability. Material attainments, therefore, at the minimum can be read in favour of a minor based on a reasonably firm expectancy. The family background, the educational exposure, the vocation of the parents and the possibility of the minor having contributed in future can be a rational and logical basis to consider awarding compensation coupled with the factum of an irretrievable loss to the parents. The severity of the loss can be accounted in cases of the loss of an only child in the family. There can be many more plausible illustrations and other factors that may arise to be considered on a case to case basis. Thus, it can be safely presumed that with the increase in the income of the child, the dependency of the parents would also increase upon the child. 32. In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the Apex Court has held the dependency of the mother in case of bachelor to the extent of 50% on the income of the deceased. Thus, in another words, it can be safely said that the courts have recognized the fact that a bachelor even after marriage, spend 50% of his or her income on the parents. 33. Thus, in our considered opinion, and considering the fact that if a minor had lived up to his normal age, after becoming major the minor would start earning and must be spending some amount upon their parents; and with the increase in income, the dependency of the parents on the income of the minor would also increase. 33. Thus, in our considered opinion, and considering the fact that if a minor had lived up to his normal age, after becoming major the minor would start earning and must be spending some amount upon their parents; and with the increase in income, the dependency of the parents on the income of the minor would also increase. Thus, we hold that the future prospect theory is applicable in the case of determination of compensation for the death of the minor child. 34. The Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) has held that 40% future prospect should be granted in case of self employed, where the age of the deceased is below 40 years. Accordingly, in our opinion, 40% should be added in the notional income for the purposes of computing the compensation in the case of minor. 35. We do not find force in the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate is on lower side inasmuch as the accident had taken place in the year 1994 and second schedule to Motor Vehicle Act,1988 was amended in the year 1994 providing Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Since the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards funeral expenses, therefore we award Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses as provided in second schedule. We find that 12% interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. Thus, we provide that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 7% interest from the date of the institution of the claim petition. 36. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of three months. 37. There shall be no orders as to costs.