JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. The present appeal is against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 330 of 2007. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under: Deceased - Prakash was going from Amravati to Badnera by Auto bearing No. MH-27-P-8625. When the said Auto reached near Gandhi Vidyalaya, one Truck bearing No. MH-30-A-9238 came from opposite direction in a high speed and gave dash to the Auto. Deceased-Prakash was seriously injured and was admitted in General Hospital, Amravati, but he died. Deceased - Prakash was serving in P.W.D. His salary was Rs.7,000/- per month. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck no. MH-30-A-9238. The said truck was driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3. The claim was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Prakash Bankar, assessed the compensation at Rs.9,25,060/-, but quantified the claim at Rs.8,00,000/-. 3. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement at Exh. 23 and denied the claim of the claimants. Respondent no. 3 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) filed written statement at Exh. 26 and denied the claim. Issues were framed at Exh. 32. The claimant - Chhaya examined herself. The truck drive (Respondent no. 1) was examined at Exh. 62. 4. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati came to the conclusion that an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The truck was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by respondent no. 3, therefore, respondent nos. 1 to 3 were directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The amount of compensation was granted without taking into consideration future prospects of the deceased. Hence, the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard learned Counsel Shri Paunikar for respondent no. 3. He has supported the impugned judgment. 6. Heard learned Counsel Shri Agrawal for the appellants (claimants). He has submitted that in the impugned judgment an amount of compensation was calculated to Rs.9,54,500/-, but granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- only because it was claimed and court fee on that amount was paid. Learned Counsel has submitted that in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Claim Tribunal has to grant “just compensation”. He has submitted that in the impugned judgment an amount of compensation was calculated to Rs.9,54,500/-, but granted compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- only because it was claimed and court fee on that amount was paid. Learned Counsel has submitted that in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Claim Tribunal has to grant “just compensation”. If the compensation granted is more than the amount of claimed then the claimant may be directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. In support of his submission, he has pointed out the judgments in the cases of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) ACJ 12 and Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710 . 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ningamma (cited supra) in para 34 has held that: “Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with “just compensation” and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under Section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting “just compensation” in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty bound and entitled to award “just compensation” irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not”. 8. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment. There are other judgments also on this point. Now, it is well settled law that while granting compensation by the Claim Tribunal, the Tribunal has to grant “just compensation”. The claimants may claim less compensation for want of sufficient court fee. After granting more compensation than claimed, the claimants can be directed to pay deficit court fee. Therefore, granting compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- by the Claim Tribunal, even though it came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,54,500/- is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. In respect of just amount of compensation, learned Counsel Shri Agrawal has submitted that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) AIR SC 3104 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. 9. In respect of just amount of compensation, learned Counsel Shri Agrawal has submitted that in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) AIR SC 3104 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2018) 3 MhLJ 70, the Claim Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration 30% future prospects in case of employed person in between the age group of 40 to 50 years. The deceased was aged about 41 years. He was in the service of P.W.D. having fixed salary of Rs.7,647/- per month. After deducting the professional tax, net salary was Rs.7,500/- per month. If 30% future prospect is added, then “just compensation” is as under: Sr.No Particular Amount Amount in Rupees 1 Monthly income of the deceased - 7500.00 2 Yearly income 7500 x 12 90,000.00 3 30% future prospects 90000 x 30/100 27,000.00 4 Total yearly income 90000 + 27000 1,17,000.00 5 1/4th Deduction (As there are 4 dependents ) 117000 x 1/4 29,250.00 6 Total yearly income 1/4 deduction 117000 - 29250 87,750.00 A Multiplier 14 (Age of the deceased about 41 years) 87750 x 14 12,28,500.00 B Funeral Expenses - 15,000.00 C Loss of Estate - 15,000.00 D Loss of Consortium - 40,000.00 A+ B+ C+ D = Total amount of compensation 12,98,500.00 The appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,98,500/-. 10. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.12,98,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition filed before the Claim Tribunal, Amravati till realization of whole amount including amount of “No Fault Liability” under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. 11. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay deficit court fee on enhanced amount of compensation. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.