JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. The present appeal has been filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement of compensation over and above what was granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, by judgment and order dated 07/2/2015. 2. In the present case, the husband of the appellant No.1, also father of appellant No.2 met with an accident on 05/05/2012, as a result of which he expired. It was the claim of the appellants that the deceased was a self-employed person working as unskilled labour and that his income was anywhere between Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per day. 3. Since the appellants had not placed on record any documentary evidence as regards the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal took notional income as Rs.3000/- per month and on that basis calculated the extent of loss of income/dependency. The Tribunal also granted certain amounts towards loss of consortium, loss of care and guidance for appellant No.2 (child) and towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. On this basis, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.5,99,000/-, along with 9% interest to the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3. The Tribunal directed payment of compensation in specific proportions to the appellants on the one hand and respondents No.2 and 3 (parents of deceased), on the other hand. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal was erroneous and that enhancement was necessary in the light of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifying the Judgments as regards calculation of compensation payable in the case where the victim/deceased was self-employed person. 5. In the first instance, it was submitted that the notional monthly income of Rs.3000/- taken by the Tribunal was very low and that it was required to be increased reasonably to at least Rs.6000/- per month. It is further submitted that although 1/4 deduction and application of multiplier of 17 could not be found fault with, the amount granted towards loss of affection, care and guidance to the child i.e. appellant No.2 was on lower side and that the compensation granted under funeral expenses and loss of consortium was also not in tune with latest position of law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 as also judgment in Bhogireddi Varalakshmi and others Vs. Mani Muthupandi and others, (2018) 11 SCC 73 . 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 submitted that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal was reasonable and that no interference was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. As regards the notional monthly income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/- per month, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2012, to treat monthly income at Rs.3000/- would mean that the victim was earning only Rs.100/- per day as an unskilled labour. Although, the appellants failed to place on record documentary material to show the exact daily income of the victim, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2012, it can be said that an unskilled labour would at least be earning about Rs.200/- per day and if that is taken the basis for calculation, the notional monthly income of the victim would come to about Rs.6,000/- per month. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants was justified in inviting attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Vs. The Division Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, (2016) 1 AllMR 508, wherein it was held that income of skilled workers was about Rs.12,000/- per month, when the incident in the said case had taken place in the year 2011. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and it be held that the notional monthly income of the victim in the present case ought to have been taken at Rs.6000/- per month. 8. As there is no grievance about the deduction 1/4th made by the Tribunal in the yearly income and applicability of multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency can be calculated on that basis. 9. But, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, perhaps on the basis of position of law prevalent at the time concerning self-employed persons. 9. But, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, perhaps on the basis of position of law prevalent at the time concerning self-employed persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (supra), in paragraph No.59.4 has specifically held that even in the case of self-employed persons the addition towards future prospects at 40% was required to be granted if the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was indeed below the age of 40 years and, therefore, amount towards future prospects at 40% of the established income is payable to the appellants. 10. As regards the payment towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, the Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- each, but, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra), in paragraph No.59.8 has held that the amounts payable under the said head should be Rs.15,000/- each. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to such increase in compensation under the aforesaid heads. 11. As regards the payment of compensation towards loss of affection, care and guidance to the appellant No.2, who is a minor child, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhogireddi Varalakshmi and others Vs. Mani Muthupandi and others (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the earlier Judgment in the case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 to hold an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- ought to be granted under this head. Therefore, to that extent quantum of compensation in the present case needs to be increased. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the enhanced compensation in the present case payable to the appellants is calculated in the following manner. Therefore, to that extent quantum of compensation in the present case needs to be increased. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the enhanced compensation in the present case payable to the appellants is calculated in the following manner. Taking notional monthly income at Rs.6000/- and annual income comes to : Rs.72,000/- < deduction towards personal expenses : Rs.18,000/- Hence, annual income : Rs.54,000/- 40% towards future prospects : Rs.21,600/- Add Future prospects (Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/-) : Rs.75,600/- Multiplier of 17 being applied (Rs.75,600/- X 17) : Rs.12,85,200/- Loss of consortium (As granted by the Tribunal) : Rs.1,00,000/- Compensation payable towards loss of affection, care and guidance to appellant No.2 : Rs.1,00,000/- Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate : Rs.15,000/- Total compensation payable : Rs.15,15,200/- 13. The Tribunal calculated the total compensation payable and then apportioned it between the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3. As this Court has granted amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant No.2 towards loss of affection, care and guidance, taking into consideration the apportionment of compensation granted by the Tribunal, upon enhancement of compensation, as per this order, the compensation shall be apportioned as follows : Appellant No.1 (Widow) : Rs.6,40,000/- + interest Appellant No.2 (son) : Rs.4,85,200/- + interest Respondent No.2 (Father) : Rs.1,30,000/- + interest Respondent No.3 (Mother) : Rs.2,60,000/- + interest 14. The other directions given by the Tribunal shall continue to operate. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.