JUDGMENT ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation under the impugned Award dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.957 of 2004. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows: (i) One Indra died on 24.09.2004, as a result of an accident caused by a bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-1372 which collided with a van bearing Registration No.GA-02-V-6001. The Appellants are the dependants of the deceased Indra and they preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.957 of 2004 seeking a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. (ii) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its Award dated 30.09.2005 directed the first respondent to pay the Appellants a sum of Rs. 2,21,880/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of the realisation. (iii) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the instant appeal has been filed by the Appellants seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard, Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr.K.J.Siva Kumar, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.J.Chandran, learned Counsel for the third respondent. The second respondent being the owner of the lorry has remained exparte before the Tribunal as well as this Court. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Appellants under the impugned Award is an inadequate compensation. According to him, the deceased was aged 22 years and was employed as a Manager at V.R Export Company, Thiruppur and was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- at the time of the accident. 5. According to him, the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs. 1,580/-. Further he would contend that even though the Appellants had made a claim of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Tribunal under the impugned Award has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,21,880/- as compensation. Further, he would contend that the Tribunal has not considered loss of future prospects to the deceased under the impugned Award. 6. According to him, the deceased was called for an entrance test and physical test in Grade-II Women Police Station which was scheduled to be held on 04.10.2004, but unfortunately, she died on 24.09.2004. 2,21,880/- as compensation. Further, he would contend that the Tribunal has not considered loss of future prospects to the deceased under the impugned Award. 6. According to him, the deceased was called for an entrance test and physical test in Grade-II Women Police Station which was scheduled to be held on 04.10.2004, but unfortunately, she died on 24.09.2004. According to him, the Tribunal did not consider Ex.P.8, under the impugned Award. Considering all these factors, he would submit that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of future prospects. Further he would contend that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards loss of love and affection and the compensation awarded towards funeral expenses is also inadequate and not in accordance with the settled principles of law as laid down by various decisions of this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court. 7. The learned Counsel would further contend that no compensation was awarded under the impugned Award towards loss of estate which also will have to be granted by this Court. Further he also contended that the Tribunal has erroneously applied 17 multiplier, instead of applying 18 multiplier. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the first respondent against whom the Award has been passed would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award is a just compensation. According to him, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs. 1,580/- as per Ex.P.5. 9. Further he would contend that the Tribunal under the impugned Award has deducted one third from the monthly income of the deceased while assessing the loss of dependancy instead of deducting 50% since the deceased was a spinster at the time of the accident. 10. This Court after having considered the materials available on record and after examining the impugned Award and after hearing the submissions of the respective Counsels observes the following: (a) The Tribunal has given a categorical finding that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus owned by the first respondent, the accident had happened which resulted in the death of Indra. (b) The Tribunal under the impugned Award has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,580/- as per Ex.P5. (b) The Tribunal under the impugned Award has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,580/- as per Ex.P5. Even though the Appellants in the grounds of appeal have stated that Rs. 1,580/- is the weekly salary of the deceased, on perusing the same by this Court, it is clear that the deceased was earning only Rs. 1,580/- per month. Therefore the contention of the Appellants in this appeal is incorrect. (c) The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. Therefore following the decision of the Honourable Surpeme Court in the case of (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) ACJ 1298), the Tribunal ought to have applied 18 multiplier, but under the impugned Award the Tribunal has erroneously applied 17 multiplier. (d) Further the deceased being a spinster, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% from her monthly income while assessing the loss of dependancy, but under the impugned Award, the Tribunal has erroneously deducted one third from her monthly income. (e) Following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 2 TNMAC 609 (SC), adding 40% of her monthly income towards future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying 18 multiplier, the loss of dependency would be calculated as follows; Rs.1580 + 40/100 x = x 12x 18= Rs. 2,38,896/- (f) Under the impugned Award, the compensation awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of love and affection is also low and not in accordance with the quantum fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 2 TNMAC 609 (SC). (g) In the considered view of this Court, the compensation awarded towards funeral expenses under the impugned Award will have to be enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection will have to be enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) instead of Rs. 5,000/-. Under the impugned Award, the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate. Being a fatal accident and the deceased was aged 22 years and was employed, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of estate, but has erroneously not awarded the same. 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) instead of Rs. 5,000/-. Under the impugned Award, the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate. Being a fatal accident and the deceased was aged 22 years and was employed, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of estate, but has erroneously not awarded the same. In the considered view of this court, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- will be an adequate compensation towards loss of estate. 11. This Court has directed the Appellants to be personally present before this Court today. As directed by this Court, the learned counsel for the Appellants produced the Appellants before this Court. This Court put questions to the Appellants and the answers given by them were found to be satisfactory and was in consonance with the claim petition as well as the evidence let in by them before the Tribunal. 12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced in the following manner: Sl. No. Amount awarded by tribunal Enhanced award passed by this Court Loss of future prospects Rs.2,14,880/- Rs. 2,38,896/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 80,000/- (each Rs. 40,000/-) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate -- Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.2,21,880/- Rs. 3,48,896/- 13. In the light of the above observations, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award is enhanced from Rs. 2,21,880/- to Rs. 3,48,896/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 14. In the result, (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. (ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Award is enhanced from Rs. 2,21,880/- to Rs. 3,48,896/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. (iii) The third respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by this Court as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as stated above, less the amount, if any, already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) On such deposit being made, the Appellants are permitted to withdraw the enhanced amount along with interest and proportionate costs as per the ratio apportioned by the Tribunal on filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. (iv) On such deposit being made, the Appellants are permitted to withdraw the enhanced amount along with interest and proportionate costs as per the ratio apportioned by the Tribunal on filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. (v) Since the appeal was filed with a delay of 1815 days and the said delay was condoned by an order of this Court dated 17.3.2011 in Miscellaneous Petition No.1 of 2011, the Appellants are not entitled for any interest for the delayed period.