ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by award dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 67/2014, whereby a sum of Rs. 21,85,960/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. It is submitted that while making such computation of claim amount, future prospects have not been taken into consideration, whereas deceased Shivendra Singh was admittedly working as Head Constable in Madhya Pradesh Police Department at P.T.S. Tighra and therefore, future prospects should have been taken into consideration. It is submitted that since the admitted age of the deceased was between 51-55 years, he should be entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the other hand submits that he has filed cross-objections under Order 41 rule 22 CPC and has taken a plea that since the deceased has major children, therefore, tribunal erred in assessing the dependency at 2/3 of the income of the deceased. It is also submitted that Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards last rites and loss of consortium against Rs. 70,000/- approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi as reported in 2018(1) JLJ 200 = AIR 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others as reported in 2012 ACJ 1428 , wherein it has been held that sons of the deceased, who are major cannot be denied compensation for the death of their father without any evidence to the contrary about their dependency (para 16). It is also submitted that even in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another as reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 , there are only two categories one of bachelor and another, is of a married person. Admittedly, claimant was married and therefore, without there being any evidence that sons of the deceased were not dependent on him, plea of counsel for the Insurance Company that 2/3 dependency has been wrongly computed, deserves to be rejected. 5. Admittedly, claimant was married and therefore, without there being any evidence that sons of the deceased were not dependent on him, plea of counsel for the Insurance Company that 2/3 dependency has been wrongly computed, deserves to be rejected. 5. There is substance in this argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant namely, Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav and therefore, in the light of law laid down in the case of Santosh Devi (supra), this plea of Insurance Company deserves to be rejected and is rejected, however, cross objections to the extent that instead of Rs. 1,25,000/- only Rs. 70,000/- is payable under conventional heads, is admissible and is admitted. Therefore, there will be reduction in the award amount to the tune of Rs. 55,000/-under the conventional heads. However, in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), since tribunal has calculated dependency at Rs. 20,60,960/- therefore, claimants are entitled to 15% amount towards future prospects. This comes out to Rs. 3,09,144/-. Out of this when Rs. 55,000/- towards conventional head is reduced, then total enhancement comes to the tune of Rs. 2,54,144/-. Therefore, appellants are entitled to a net enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,54,144/- 6. Accordingly appeal is disposed of in above terms. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.