JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The appellants - original claimants have preferred present appeal under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("M.V. Act" for short) for enhancement of compensation awarded to them under the judgment and award dated 19.07.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, in MACP No. 384 of 2001. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal as could be gathered from the impugned judgment are that: On 16.09.2000, the deceased Jitubhai Dharmarajsing Chauhan was travelling in the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-1VV 4211, which was driven by the respondent No. 1 and when they reached at the place of offence. At that time, the respondent No. 4 came with his truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-TT-7111 from the opposite side in rash and negligent manner which endangers to human life and collided with the auto rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling. The deceased was seriously injured and admitted in the L.G. Hospital. Thereafter, he was transferred in the V.S. Hospital. He was transferred in the V.S. Hospital on next day as the injury was serious and he had expired on 17.9.2000 at about 11:14 hrs. during the treatment in V.S. Hospital. The auto-rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling was driven by the respondent No. 1 which was of the ownership of respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Co. Whereas the truck with the auto-rickshaw met with an accident that was driven by respondent No. 4, which was of ownership of respondent No. 5 and insured with respondent No. 6-Insurance Co. The appellant therefore filed MACP No. 314 of 2001 in MACT, Ahmedabad, to recover the compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. 3. Respondent No. 2 owner of the offending auto-rickshaw remained unserved. 4. This appeal is for enhancement by claimants. No legal issue as regards liability of the owner is involved. I am, therefore, of the view that the presence or absence of unserved respondent Nos. 2-owner of the offending auto-rickshaw insured with the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, would not make any difference, as ultimately, if the claimants succeed in the appeal, it would be insurance Company, which would pay the enhanced compensation. 5. Mr. I am, therefore, of the view that the presence or absence of unserved respondent Nos. 2-owner of the offending auto-rickshaw insured with the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, would not make any difference, as ultimately, if the claimants succeed in the appeal, it would be insurance Company, which would pay the enhanced compensation. 5. Mr. Vilav K. Bhatia, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 18 instead of 17 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- under the conventional head, which is not in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 and the original claimants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head. He, therefore, urged that the compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 6. Ms. Heena Desai, learned advocate and Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 respectively have fairly stated at bar that appropriate order may be passed to bring compensation in tune with the decision in the case of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi (Supra). 7. It is undisputed that the deceased was aged about 23 years of age at the time of accident. Hence, the appellants are entitled to multiplier of 18 in place of 17 for the purpose of determining of their dependency accordingly. It would come to Rs. 10,200 x 18 = Rs. 1,83,600/- instead of Rs. 1,73,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Moreover, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- for loss of expectations of life and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses (total Rs. 12,000/-). As per the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- under the aforesaid heads. Hence, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 58,000/- as an additional compensation. In view of the above, the claimants entitled to Rs. 2,43,400/- as total compensation in place of Rs. 1,85,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are therefore, entitled to Rs. 58,000/- as an additional compensation with 9% interest. 8. 70,000/- under the aforesaid heads. Hence, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 58,000/- as an additional compensation. In view of the above, the claimants entitled to Rs. 2,43,400/- as total compensation in place of Rs. 1,85,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are therefore, entitled to Rs. 58,000/- as an additional compensation with 9% interest. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeeds in part. The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, in MACP No. 384 of 2001 dated 19.07.2005 is hereby modified and the claimants are now entitled to Rs. 2,43,400/- in place of Rs. 185,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled Rs. 58,000/- as an additional compensation with 9% interest. The respondent Nos. 3 and 6 are directed to deposit the amount for enhanced compensation as per the ratio of their liability as per the impugned judgment. Parties are left to bear their own costs. R & P be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.