ORDER 1. The miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 22.3.2018 passed in M.V.C. No. 400702/2016 by XIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass: on 31.1.2016 Shivkumar (deceased) alongwith her relatives coming from Mathura to Indore by bus reached at Guna, a truck bearing registration No. MP-09-H.H.4483 coming from opposite side driven rashly and negligently dashed the bus due to which Shivkumar sustained grievous injuries and fracture in his leg. He was referred to Gokuldas Hospital. During treatment he passed away on 4.2.2016. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that at the time of incident, the deceased was a young man aged 24 years earning at least Rs. 12,000/- per month being a Sales Manager in the firm of V.R. Enterprises. 4. Learned counsel further submits that looking to academic qualification, work experience as Sales Manager and salary certificate Exhibit P-10 and other material evidence on record from Exhibit P-83 to P-96 as well as statement of owner of the company PW3 Hitendra Rahinj, coupled with the fact that in the year 2016, wages/skilled labour as per Collector rate of Rs. 230/- per day, by no stretch of imagination, the salary of the deceased could assessed as Rs. 5,000/- per month by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has committed illegality while determining monthly income of the deceased. Under such circumstances the salary of the deceased ought to have been assessed at least as Rs. 6,400/- per month. 5. Because of the incident, he met untimely death. The family is reeling under most precarious financial constraints and also suffered the loss of love and affection of the deceased. 6. The claimants/appellants have challenged the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the premise that the compensation awarded is meager and on the lower side on various heads. The multiplier has been correctly applied as 18'. Hence, the compensation has to be enhanced appropritely. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the impugned award. On merits, it is submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is called for. However, the liability of the insurance company is not disputed. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the impugned award. On merits, it is submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no enhancement is called for. However, the liability of the insurance company is not disputed. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard. 9. It is established from the material available on record that the accident took place by the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the respondents No. 3 and/Insurance Company. The deceased suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question and died in the hospital during treatment. 10. The moot question to be addressed upon in the appeal preferred by the claimants is as to whether the Tribunal was justified awarding for loss of dependency, Rs. 10,08072/- [5,000/- x 40% = 2000] [Rs. 5000/- + Rs. 2000/- = Rs. 7000/- x 12 x 1/3 x 18 =10,08,072/-], funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- & loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/-, loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- and Medical Expenses Rs. 2,54,362/-; total compensation of Rs. 13,32,434/-. 11. Having gone through the impugned award and looking to the fact that deceased was 24 years a young boy earning as Sales Manager in a private company on the date of accident, loss of dependency and his future prospects have not been assessed properly. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced appropriately. 12. The finding of the Tribunal as regards earning of the deceased as determined is totally perverse and absolutely unreasonable. Considering the fact that the deceased was supporting his family by earning and in the obtaining facts and circumstances and to do substantive justice, the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 6,400/- per month. The Tribunal has not awarded appropriately under the head 'future prospects'. Hence, the amount of compensation has to be awarded under the said head. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2018 (I) JLJ 200 = 2017 ACJ 2700 National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others and the age of the deceased as 24 years, the claimants are entitled for future prospects of 40%; thus Rs. 6400/- [6400/- + 2560/- = 8960] x 12 = Rs. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2018 (I) JLJ 200 = 2017 ACJ 2700 National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others and the age of the deceased as 24 years, the claimants are entitled for future prospects of 40%; thus Rs. 6400/- [6400/- + 2560/- = 8960] x 12 = Rs. 1,07,520/- (after deduction of 1/3 towards dependency) it comes to Rs. 7,1680/- (Rs. 1,07,520/- - 35,840/-). Hence, the multiplier 18' is appropriate multiplier [Rs. 7,16,80/- x 18] total dependency comes to Rs. 12,90, 240/-. 13. Bearing in mind the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and to meet the ends of justice, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is substituted and the claimants are entitled for just compensation as follows : (i) towards loss of dependency Rs.12,90,240/- (ii) towards conventional head Rs.70,000/- (iii) towards Medical Expenses Rs.2,54,362/- Total Rs. 16,14,602/- 14. As such, the total amount awarded to the claimants is from Rs. 13,32,434/- to Rs. 16,14,602/-, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 2,82,168/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty Eight Only), with interest at the rate as fixed by the Tribunal in the award which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 2,82,168/- shall be payable to the claimants within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 15. Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rohit Arya) Judge jyoti.