JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. This is an appeal fled by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in short, are as under:- 2. On 22nd April, 2007, Mohd. Sharif Shaikh Mehboob was going by his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. MH-27/W-2357 from Jamil Colonhy to Asir Colony, Amravati. The offending truck bearing Registration No. MH-31/AP-7782 came from Walgaon side in a high speed and gave a dash to the motorcycle. Mohd. Sharif was seriously injured and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 57 years. He was working as a conductor in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and earning Rs. 11,426/- per month. 3. The claimants/legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Sharif fled Claim Petition No. 229 of 2007 before the Claims Tribunal, Amravati. The Claims Tribunal, Amravati, granted compensation of Rs.3,96,700- 00. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard learned Adv. Shri Ambatkar holding for Adv. Shri P.R. Agrawal for the appellants. Learned Adv. has pointed out the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 3 RCR(Civil) 77. Learned Adv. has submitted that the Claims Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier, holding that the deceased was to retire after two years. The learned Adv. has submitted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma [supra], the correct multiplier should have been nine and, therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation by applying the multiplier 'nine'. 5. Heard learned Adv. Shri Paunikar for the respondent no.2. He has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation. There is nothing wrong in the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Till date, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma [supra] is the landmark judgment and it is followed in various judgments by Hon'ble Apex Court and also other Courts. The guidelines are given by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma [supra] in respect of applying a multiplier for a particular age group. There is no dispute about the earning of deceased. The deceased was earning Rs. 11,000/- per month. He was working as a Conductor in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. 7. The guidelines are given by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma [supra] in respect of applying a multiplier for a particular age group. There is no dispute about the earning of deceased. The deceased was earning Rs. 11,000/- per month. He was working as a Conductor in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. 7. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled for compensation by adding the future prospects of fifteen per cent. The deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of accident. 8. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [supra], Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "59.3. 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%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax." The deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of accident and, therefore, fifteen per cent of income is to added towards future prospects. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram & others, (2018) ACJ 2782, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- per head for loss of consortium/love and affection. 9. In para 52 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & others [supra], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It has granted Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. It has granted Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that 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 principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads." 10. In view of the judgments in the cases of Sarla Verma [supra] and Pranay Sethi & others [supra], the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation as under:- [a] Rs.9,12,16800 Rs.11000-00 per month income [+] 15% towards future prospects [deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of accident] = Rs.1,650-00 = Rs.12650-00 monthly income [-] Rs.4,216-00 approximately towards one third deduction = Rs.8446 [x] 12 = Rs.1,01,352-00 yearly income x 9 = Rs.9,12,168-00 [b] Rs. 40,000-00... Loss of consortium. [c] Rs. 15,000-00... Funeral expenses. [d] Rs. 15,000-00... Loss of estate. Rs.9,82,168-00.... Total amount of compensation. 40,000-00... Loss of consortium. [c] Rs. 15,000-00... Funeral expenses. [d] Rs. 15,000-00... Loss of estate. Rs.9,82,168-00.... Total amount of compensation. Thus, claimants-appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,82,168-00 [rupees nine lakhs eighty two thousand one hundred sixty-eight only]. 11. Hence, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside in respect of amount of compensation. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay amount of compensation of Rs.9,82,168-00 [rupees nine lakhs eighty-two thousand one hundred sixty eight only] to the appellants-claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the realization of whole amount, including the amount of No-Fault-Liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. R & P be sent back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati.