JUDGMENT : 1. The short question raised by the claimants is that the notional monthly income of the victim was pegged at an abysmally low rate. 2. The matter was governed by Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That implied that the second Schedule to the Act introduced by way of an amendment in 1994 had to be adhered to. Though the second Schedule remained unaltered between 1994 and 2008 when the incident took place, it is reasonable to expect that such notional amount ought to have been revised periodically. In this context, reference may be made to a recent Constitution Bench judgment reported at (2017) 16 SCC 680 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi). While substantially endorsing the view expressed in Sarla Verma, the Constitution Bench provided for enhanced amounts on account of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The judgment also provided that the amounts indicated on account of the three heads should be revised at the rate of 10% every three years. 3. On a parity of reasoning, the amount indicated in the second Schedule to the Act in 1994 ought to have been increased at the rate of 10% every three years so that by 2008 it ought to have been enhanced by 50%. In other words, Rs. 15,000/- in 1994 ought to have become Rs. 22,500/- in 2008 after a lapse of 14 years from the time when the relevant Schedule was introduced in the statute. 4. The tribunal perceived itself to be bound by the literal content of the Schedule without making any alteration thereto. Periodical increase on some weightage basis ought to have been applied and, indeed, even the statute ought to have made a reference to such periodic increase. However, since the dictum in Pranay Sethi can be extended for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of weightage, the same has been applied. 5. Thus, the notional income of the victim at the time of his death in 2008 ought to have been taken as Rs. 22,500/- per annum. Upon the notional income being increased, the quantum of compensation will be much higher. 6. The parties are left free to complete the calculation and the insurance company should ensure that the compensation or balance compensation is paid to the persons rightfully entitled thereto within three months from date. 22,500/- per annum. Upon the notional income being increased, the quantum of compensation will be much higher. 6. The parties are left free to complete the calculation and the insurance company should ensure that the compensation or balance compensation is paid to the persons rightfully entitled thereto within three months from date. The entire amount due will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till the date of disbursement. 7. The insurance company must ensure that the balance amount due to the claimants, whether in terms of this order or otherwise, is released within three months from date. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the insurance company that Advocate for the claimants should furnish the particulars of the bank accounts of the heirs entitled to receive payment to Advocate for the insurance company so that the payments due to each of such heirs can be put in directly in their accounts. The particulars should be so furnished. 9. FMA 653 of 2019 and CAN 4869 of 2013 are disposed of without any order as to costs. 10. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.