JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants praying therein to enhance the compensation amount awarded on 12.11.2014 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Giridih, in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 31/2011. 3. On 19.5.2011, the deceased-Mobin Ansari @ Pappu was coming by his bicycle to his residence when, a Mini Truck bearing registration No. JH 11F 4396 dashed the bicycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and in the meantime another Pick-up Van bearing Registration No. JH 11D 8294 also dashed the deceased causing grievous injury. The deceased was taken to hospital, where he expired. 4. The claimants filed application claiming that the deceased was a mason and he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. They further claimed that the vehicles were insured by the Insurance company and thus they claimed rupees six lakhs as compensation on account of death of the deceased. After receiving notice, the owner and the driver of the Pick-up Van appeared and filed their written statement. The owner and the Insurer of the Mini Truck also appeared and filed their written statement. The respondents have filed their show cause and opposed the claim of the claimants and took a plea that because of negligence of the part of the deceased, the accident has taken place. The existence of the Insurance policies was not disputed. 5. The trial court framed five issues and five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimants. Several documents were also exhibited. The documents in support of both the vehicles were also produced and exhibited before the trial court. The Insurance Company of both the vehicle did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary. 6. The trial court after evaluating the evidences, led by the parties and going through the documents, assessed Rs.4000/-as the monthly income of the deceased. After deducting 1/ 4th from the said income and applying the multiplier “11” and also by awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/-on the loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc., a total sum of Rs.4,06,000/-has been awarded to the claimants. Both the Insurance Companies were directed to pay the said amount in the ratio of 50:50. The claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 7. Both the Insurance Companies were directed to pay the said amount in the ratio of 50:50. The claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation have filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no future prospect has been considered in the instant case. He further submits that the lost of consortium, funeral expenses, etc. is on much lower side. He further submits that in this case the compensation on account of future prospects should have been considered in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The claimants claim that they are entitled to get enhancement of compensation amount. So far as loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc. are concerned, the claimants claim compensation in terms of the said judgment. 8. Counsel appearing for the insurance companies did not deny the factum of accident and insurance of the vehicles. They have not file any appeal against the judgment impugned. 9. In view of the said submission and on basis of records, now it has to be seen whether the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation or not if yes, at what rate. While going through the impugned judgment, I find that the court has rightly concluded that the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.4,000/-. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/-per month as claimed by them. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 50-55 years at the time of accident. Thus the multiplier was correctly taken as “11” and the amount of Rs.3,96,000/-awarded as compensation was correctly assessed by the court below. Over and above, the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-has been awarded as loss of consortium, funeral expenses etc. As per the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra), the amount of Rs.70,000/-has to be paid on account of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and lost of estate. Thus, the appellants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.70,000/-on the aforesaid head. No future prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Thus, the appellants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.70,000/-on the aforesaid head. No future prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Supreme Court has held that for a person aged about 51-60 years, 10% annual income has to be considered as future prospects. Thus, the claimants are also entitled to 10% of Rs.3,96,000/-i.e. Rs.39,600/-as future prospects. 10. Thus, this Court feels that in addition to Rs.3,96,000/-, the claimants are also entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- (loss of consortium and funeral expenses etc.) + 39,600/-(future prospects) = Rs 1,09,600/-. as compensation. Thus, the total amount of compensation, as fixed by the court below, i.e. Rs.4,06,000/-is enhanced to Rs. 5,15,600/-(five lakhs, fifteen thousand and six hundred only). The claimants are entitled to the aforesaid amount along with interest, which has already been assessed/awarded in paragraph 14 of the impugned award. The amount, if any, already paid to the claimants, will be deducted from the total amount of compensation, which is re-assessed by the order of this Court. The apportionment will remain as it is, as already decided by the Tribunal in the judgment. 11. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the extended indicated above.