JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. These appeals have arisen out of a single road traffic accident, therefore, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are directed against a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) dated 22nd January, 2013 passed in File Nos. 280/Claim, 279/Claim and 248/Claim. 3. On 23rd July, 2010, a matador bearing registration No. JK06-774 which was going from Thathri towards Phagumarh at about 6.15 p.m. and when it was about to reach Phagumarh, plunged into deep waters of river Chenab due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. As a result of the accident, passengers travelling in the vehicle received fatal injuries and even dead bodies of most of the passengers could not be retrieved. The appellants in these appeals filed claim petitions seeking compensation for the death of Azad Husain, Mohd. Aslam and Mohd. Maqbool Butt respectively in the accident in question. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 chose not to contest the claim and were, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte. However, respondent No. 1 contested the claim of the appellants by filing its objection. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether an accident occurred on 23.07.2010 at Phagumarh by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK06-774 (407 Mini Bus) in the hands of erring driver, as a result of which it fell into Chenab river and deceased Mohd. Aslam, Azad Hussain, Nazir Ahmed Mir, Mohd. Maqbool Butt and Bashir Ahmed suffered fatal injuries? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation in all the claim petitions, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance? If so, to what effect? OPP-2 4. Whether the offending vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident? If so, to what effect? OPR-2 5. Relief? O.P. Parties.” 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence led before it, decided the claim petitions vide its award dated 22nd January, 2013, awarding compensation to the appellants. If so, to what effect? OPP-2 4. Whether the offending vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident? If so, to what effect? OPR-2 5. Relief? O.P. Parties.” 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence led before it, decided the claim petitions vide its award dated 22nd January, 2013, awarding compensation to the appellants. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the income of the deceased and even has not added anything to the assessed income towards the future prospects. Multiplier applied by the Tribunal too is also disputed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company opposed the claim of the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that since the appellants have received the amount of compensation, as such, these appeals are not maintainable. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/S M. Ramnarain Private Limited v. State Trading Corporation of India Limited, (1983) 3 SCC 75 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to set out para 30 of the judgment of M/S M. Ramnarain Private Limited (supra), which reads thus:- “30. In the instant case we are not satisfied that the defendant-appellant had obtained any advantage under the decree to preclude him from filing an appeal against the same. Even before any instalment had fallen due under the decree, the defendant appellant had filed the earlier appeal No. 36 of 1981 against the provisions regarding instalments. It is to be noted that instead of taking or getting any advantage under the decree in the matter of granting instalments, the defendant-appellant had challenged the same long before the question of deriving any benefit thereunder had come. As we have earlier noticed, the defendant-appellant had withdrawn the earlier appeal the very next day and had filed the present appeal within eight days thereafter. As we have earlier noticed, the defendant-appellant had withdrawn the earlier appeal the very next day and had filed the present appeal within eight days thereafter. In an appropriate case any party which derives any advantage under a decree or order may, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, disentitle himself to challenge the same and will be estopped from filing an appeal against the same, It is also to be borne in mind that no execution of decree passed in a suit on the original side is normally permitted unless a certified copy of the decree is on the record in the execution proceeding. A certified copy of the decree is not available so long as the decree is not drawn up and filed. The present appeal had been filed long before the decree had been drawn up and, therefore, there could be no question of execution of any decree at the time when the present appeal was filed. The question of the defendant appellant having obtained an advantage under the decree does not therefore, really arise. In the case of Bhau Ram v. Baijnath, this Court observed at p. 362: “It seems to us, however, that in the absence of some statutory provision or of a well-recognised principle of equity, no one can be deprived of his legal rights including a statutory right of appeal.” We have earlier held that no statutory provision deprives the defendant-appellant of his right to file the present appeal. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case and the facts of this case also do not attract any well-recognised principle of equity to deprive the appellant of his very valuable statutory right of appeal. The various passages from Halsbury relied on by Mr. Nariman which we have earlier quoted lend support to the view that the defendant-appellant in the instant case by reason of its conduct or otherwise is not estopped or has not become disentitled to file the appeal.” 9. From perusal of the above para, it is abundantly clear that the Supreme Court has not laid down as a proposition of law that in all cases if a party derives benefit or advantage under any decree or award, he may be precluded from challenging the same by filing appeal against the said decree/award. From perusal of the above para, it is abundantly clear that the Supreme Court has not laid down as a proposition of law that in all cases if a party derives benefit or advantage under any decree or award, he may be precluded from challenging the same by filing appeal against the said decree/award. However, it has been held that in an appropriate case, any party which drives any advantage under a decree or order may, depending on the facts and circumstance of the case, disentitle himself to challenge the same and will be estopped from filing an appeal against the same. It is in this context, the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 needs to be considered and appreciated. It is not in dispute that the instant appeals arise out of the award passed by the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. The provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial provisions and enacted for the benefit of the victims of motor vehicular accidents and are, therefore, required to be considered liberally and in a manner that furthers the object of these provisions. The victims of an accident who have lost their sole breadwinner cannot be allowed to wait for the release of the award amount till the appeal against the award is disposed of. In this context, if the claimants withdraw the amount of award deposited before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that they have derived the benefit or advantage under the award and, therefore, in all cases, precluded from filing the appeal. In any case, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the award to be passed must represent compensation which is just and fair. 11. In somewhat similar circumstances this Court while considering the issue of estoppel in a case under Employees Compensation Act in Vinkel Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2019 (1) JKJ 502 [HC] decided on 18.07.2018 negated the similar contention of the learned counsel for the respondents therein. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Insurer that with the withdrawal of the award amount deposited before the Tribunal, the appellants are estopped from filing the appeal(s) and the same is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Insurer that with the withdrawal of the award amount deposited before the Tribunal, the appellants are estopped from filing the appeal(s) and the same is, accordingly, rejected. 13. Having held thus, now the claims of the appellants for enhancement of compensation are taken for consideration separately. MA No. 506/2013 The appellants, Widow, minor sons, parents and minor brothers of the deceased Mohd. Aslam, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 30.00 lakh as compensation under different heads. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced before it, assessed the income of the deceased, a driver by profession at the time of accident at Rs. 6,000/- per month, which, in my opinion is correct. However, the Tribunal has failed to add anything to the assessed income of the deceased towards the future prospects. In terms of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others; AIR 2017 SC 5157 and keeping in view the age of the deceased which has been proved as 22 years, an addition of 40% is required to be made to the established income of the deceased. The multiplier applicable in the instant case is 18, whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 which is not correct. The Tribunal has, however, rightly deducted 1/4th on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/-, adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 8,400/-. Deducting 1/4th on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency would come to (8400-2100) Rs. 6,300/-. Accordingly, the annual loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 75,600/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 13,60,800/-. The amount awarded under the conventional heads is also not in tune with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore, the same is also required to be modified. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the following terms:- Loss of dependency Rs. 13,60,800.00 Funeral Expenses Rs. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the following terms:- Loss of dependency Rs. 13,60,800.00 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of consortium to Widow Rs. 1,20,000.00 And two minor children 40000/-each Total Rs. 15,10,000.00 Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. MA No. 505/2013 The appellants, the widow and children of the deceased-Azad Hussain filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 30.00 lakh as compensation under different heads. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced before it, assessed the income of the deceased, stated to be fruit and vegetable vendor at the time of accident at Rs. 5,000/- per month, which, in my opinion is correct. However, the Tribunal has failed to add anything to the assessed income of the deceased towards the future prospects. In terms of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others; AIR 2017 SC 5157 and keeping in view the age of the deceased which has been proved as 35 years, an addition of 40% is required to be made to the established income of the deceased. The multiplier applicable in the instant case is 16, whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 which is not correct. The Tribunal has, however, rightly deducted 1/4th on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/-, adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7,000/-. Deducting 1/4th on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency would come to (7000-1750) Rs. 5250/-. Accordingly, the annual loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 63,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 10,08,000/-. The amount awarded under the conventional heads is also not in tune with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore, the same is also required to be modified. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the following terms:- Loss of dependency Rs. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the following terms:- Loss of dependency Rs. 10,08,000.00 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of consortium to Widow Rs. 2,40,000.00 And five minor children 40000/- each Total Rs. 12,78,000.00 Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. MA No. 516/2013 The appellants, the widow, son and daughter in law of the deceased Mohd. Maqbool Butt, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation under different heads. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced before it, assessed the income of the deceased, a tailor by profession at the time of accident at Rs. 5,500/- per month, which, in my opinion is correct. However, the Tribunal has failed to add anything to the assessed income of the deceased towards the future prospects. In terms of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others; AIR 2017 SC 5157 and keeping in view the age of the deceased which has been proved as 56 years, an addition of 10% is required to be made to the established income of the deceased. Multiplier of 09 has correctly been applied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also rightly deducted 1/2nd on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 5,500/-, adding 10% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 6,050/-. Deducting 1/2nd on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,025/-. Accordingly, the annual loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs. 36,300/-. Applying the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,26,700/-. The amount awarded under the conventional heads is also not in tune with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore, the same is also required to be modified. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the following terms:- Loss of dependency Rs. 3,26,700.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of Estate Rs. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal in the following terms:- Loss of dependency Rs. 3,26,700.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of consortium to Widow Rs. 40,000.00 Loss of parental consortium to Rs. 40,000.00 Respondent No. 2 Total Rs. 4,36,700.00 Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.