ORDER : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by inadequacy of compensation awarded by judgment and award dated 5th of April, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), in lieu of accidental death of their bachelor son Mahendra Singh, the parents, appellant-claimants No. 1 & 2 along with another minor son Devendra Singh, have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that appellant-claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act before learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 67,50,000/-. It is inter-alia averred in the claim petition that on the fateful day of 26th June, 2011, at about 8 PM, deceased Mahendra Singh who had gone to Raipur and returning back in a Jeep, Tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-22-RA-2142 driven rashly and negligently hit the jeep in backside, as a result of which Mahendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and died. The incident was reported to police and thereupon FIR No. 103/2011 was lodged at PS Raipur which eventually culminated into charge-sheet against first-respondent- driver of tractor. Quantifying the aforementioned amount of compensation, appellant-claimants pleaded that at the time of death of their bachelor son Mahendra Singh was earning Rs. 12,000 per mensem by doing painting work at Delhi. It is also averred that out of his total income deceased was contributing a sum of Rs. 9,000 to his family. With these pleadings, the appellants quantified the total aforesaid amount of compensation under different heads. 3. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and they even denied the accident having taken place by their vehicle. But these respondents also pleaded in the return that their vehicle is falsely implicated in the matter. It was specifically stated that the tractor driver was holding a valid licence. The factum of vehicle being insured with third respondent-insurer is also incorporated in the reply. 4. Claim petition is also contested on behalf of respondent-insurer by filing a reply. As per the version of insurer no accident was caused by the insured vehicle. In the alternative, respondent insurer pleaded that accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself. The factum of vehicle being insured with third respondent-insurer is also incorporated in the reply. 4. Claim petition is also contested on behalf of respondent-insurer by filing a reply. As per the version of insurer no accident was caused by the insured vehicle. In the alternative, respondent insurer pleaded that accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself. A technical objection was also raised that at the time of accident driver of the insured vehicle had no valid driving licence. 5. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled four issues for determination. 6. In order to substantiate the claim, first appellant Bhanwar Singh appeared in the witness box and besides oral evidence eleven documents were produced by the appellants, which were exhibited. None appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 as such ex-parte proceedings were taken against them whereas from the side of insurance company one witness NAW1 Rajesh appeared in the witness box and six documents produced. 7. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of evidence tendered by rival parties, decided first two issues in favour of appellants and against the respondents. Switching on to issue No. 3, burden of which was on insurer, in want of requisite evidence, the same was decided against insurance company. The crucial issue about quantum of compensation, i.e., issue No. 4, was partly decided in favour of appellants. The learned Tribunal while considering income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month, in the backdrop of his status as bachelor, deducted 50% for personal expenses and then applied multiplier of 13 by considering age of appellants-claimants and quantified compensation for loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,12,000/-. Besides that, learned Tribunal also awarded funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-, expenses for transportation of dead body Rs. 3,000/- and for loss of son and comfort a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal assessed the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,45,000/- with interest thereon from the date of filing claim petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Panwar, has strenuously urged that learned Tribunal, while assessing the amount of compensation, has not awarded just compensation in adherence of Section 168 of the Act. Mr. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal assessed the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,45,000/- with interest thereon from the date of filing claim petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Panwar, has strenuously urged that learned Tribunal, while assessing the amount of compensation, has not awarded just compensation in adherence of Section 168 of the Act. Mr. Panwar would contend that learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future prospects which in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case should have been at higher estimate of monthly income upto additional 50% of the earnings of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the amount of compensation awarded is grossly inadequate in view of the fact that learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation has taken into consideration the age of the claimants/parents and not of deceased and thereby applied a wrong multiplier which has resulted in awarding low compensation to the appellants, which is liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel would urge that compensation for funeral expenses is grossly inadequate. He further submits that non-awarding of compensation to the first appellant for mental sufferings, deprivation of company and nursing during evening phase of his life due to untimely death of son requires consideration in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Per contra, Mr. UCS Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent insurer has refuted all the arguments advanced by the appellants and stoutly defended the impugned judgment and award. Learned counsel submits that in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair warranting no interference/enhancement in this appeal. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused the impugned judgment & award as well as materials available on record. 11. The limited grievance of appellants, regarding inadequacy of compensation quantified and awarded by learned Tribunal, merits examination in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. There remains no quarrel that the learned Tribunal is duty bound to determine just compensation in cases of fatal accidents, as envisaged under Section 168 of the Act. 11. The limited grievance of appellants, regarding inadequacy of compensation quantified and awarded by learned Tribunal, merits examination in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. There remains no quarrel that the learned Tribunal is duty bound to determine just compensation in cases of fatal accidents, as envisaged under Section 168 of the Act. The learned Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation has not awarded any amount towards future prospectus and has applied the multiplier for awarding compensation on the basis of age of the parents of deceased and accordingly arrived at inadequate amount of compensation, which is required to be reassessed. 12. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor and as per verdict in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], though learned Tribunal for personal expenses has made deduction half of the income of the deceased but then learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future prospects. In Sarla Verma (supra), Supreme Court has discussed threadbare the criteria for deduction towards personal expenses of deceased and application of multiplicand by emphasizing that while applying multiplicand age of the deceased is paramount and not age of the claimant/s. The Court held: "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 13. In view thereof, the learned Tribunal for assessing just compensation towards the head "loss of dependency" has wrongly considered age of the appellants and not of deceased by applying multiplier of 13. In adherence of verdict in Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra), multiplier is to be applied keeping in view age of the deceased. In view thereof, the learned Tribunal for assessing just compensation towards the head "loss of dependency" has wrongly considered age of the appellants and not of deceased by applying multiplier of 13. In adherence of verdict in Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra), multiplier is to be applied keeping in view age of the deceased. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased i.e. 21 years, multiplier of 18 is required to be pressed into service for determining compensation. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of Loss of Dependency is worked out as under: 4,000 - 50% = 2,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 4,32,000 Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 deserves to be enhanced under the head of Loss of Dependency. 14. As regards future prospects, the learned Tribunal has not at all awarded any compensation for future prospects whereas an addition of 40% in the income assessed towards loss of dependency is required to be made under this head as is settled by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court looking to age and status of deceased as self-employed person so as to make the quantum of compensation just and reasonable. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (13) Scale 12 ], the Supreme Court has held:- "61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (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. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 15. In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has erred in not quantifying compensation under the head Future Prospects and therefore, as mandated by the Constitution Bench, the appellants are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation by adding 40% for Future Prospects which on the basis of loss of income comes to Rs. 1,72,800. 16. The learned Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation under non-conventional head of funeral expenses and not awarded anything for loss of estate of the deceased. That apart the first appellate father of the deceased is not awarded any compensation for mental sufferings, deprivation of company, nursing and affection of his son due to untimely death. By applying rational approach in this regard the amount of funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 15,000 from Rs. 5,000/-. That apart the first appellate father of the deceased is not awarded any compensation for mental sufferings, deprivation of company, nursing and affection of his son due to untimely death. By applying rational approach in this regard the amount of funeral expenses is enhanced to Rs. 15,000 from Rs. 5,000/-. Likewise, for loss of estate of deceased, amount of compensation is quantified to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- and for mental suffering, deprivation of company, nursing of his son, first appellant is declared entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. 17. Accordingly, the compensation amount payable to the appellants is detailed out as under: Head Amount awarded by learned Tribunal Amount enhanced/awarded by the Court Amount to be paid Loss of Dependency 3,12,000 1,20,000 4,32,000 Future Prospects - 1,72,800 1,72,800 Mental suffering deprivation of company, Nursing and care to appellant No.2 (Mother) 25,000 - 25,000 Mental suffering deprivation of company, Nursing and care to appellant No.2 (Father) - 25,000 25,000 Loss of Estate - 15,000 15,000 Funeral Expenses 5,000 10,000 15,000 Total….. 3,45,000 3,42,800 6,87,800 18. Thus, total enhanced amount quantified at is Rs. 3,42,800/-. The upshot of foregoing discussion is that the instant appeal is allowed in part and the amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is enhanced, as indicated hereinabove. The respondents are declared jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 3,42,800/- to the appellants. Respondents are also directed to ensure payment of enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant-claimants within a period of two months with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.