JUDGMENT This enhancement appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 17th December, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri (for short “the Tribunal’) in file No.88/Claim entitled Neetu Devi and others v. Mohinder Kumar and others, whereby the appellants have been held entitled to a compensation of ¹ 18,77,560 along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till payment of the award amount is made. The enhancement has been sought on the following grounds:- i) The Tribunal has committed a serious error of law by denying to add/increase the income of the deceased by 50% towards loss of future prospects, as provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and reiterated in the Constitution Bench Judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . ii) The Tribunal committed yet another error by making deduction of 1/3rd from the established income of the deceased towards personal expenses, when, as per the legal position enunciated in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it should have been 1/4th, given the fact that the deceased was survived by atleast four dependents i.e. widow, two minor daughters and aged mother. iii) The Tribunal even went wrong in applying the multiplier of 10, when as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and approved by a Constitution Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), for the age group of 26-30, the multiplier of 17 has been prescribed. There is further error comitted by the Tribunal in awarding compensation on conventional heads ignoring the mandate of law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is necessary to first take note of few admitted facts. a) The deceased at the time of accident was 27 years old and was a Sepoy No.12914404N in 15 Inf. Battalion (TA). b) The deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 23,157/-. c) The deceased is survived by his wife-appellant No.1, two minor daughters-appellant Nos. 2 and 3, mother-Neelam Devi, and father Bir Bal. a) The deceased at the time of accident was 27 years old and was a Sepoy No.12914404N in 15 Inf. Battalion (TA). b) The deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 23,157/-. c) The deceased is survived by his wife-appellant No.1, two minor daughters-appellant Nos. 2 and 3, mother-Neelam Devi, and father Bir Bal. Out of the five heirs of the deceased, the appellant Nos. 1 to 4, admittedly, were dependent upon the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that with a view to arrive at a sum, which represents just and fair compensation, it is necessary to strictly adhere to the legal parameters for computation of the compensation laid down in twin judgments of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned counsel, therefore, urges that the Tribunal having gone astray of the settled legal position has awarded a meager amount of compensation, which, by no stretch of reasoning, can be termed as fair and just compensation. 4. Per contra, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 (insurer), contends that in the absence of cogent evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal had no option but to adopt criteria, which would work out a fair and just compensation. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded in terms of the impugned award is, by all means, just and fair compensation. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record and find enough substance in the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. The claimants/appellants has specifically claimed in the claim petition that the deceased was a sepoy in Indian Army and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 23,157/-. This assertion is supported by the oral testimony of the witnesses produced by the appellants. There is also original salary certificate on record issued by the Indian Army. Respondent No.3 has not specifically denied the aforesaid averments in the claim petition nor has it led any contrary evidence. In such situation, the Tribunal committed no error in accepting the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of accident as Rs. 23,157/-. 7. If that be the position, there was no escape from applying the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) to add 50% to the established income towards loss of future prospects. In such situation, the Tribunal committed no error in accepting the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of accident as Rs. 23,157/-. 7. If that be the position, there was no escape from applying the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) to add 50% to the established income towards loss of future prospects. The Tribunal has, without any reason, omitted to do so. Similarly, having regard to the number of dependents left behind by the deceased i.e. widow, two minor daughters and mother, deduction should have been applied @ 1/4th of the established income of the deceased. The Tribunal has gone wrong by applying the deduction of 1/3rd, which is not in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 8. Similarly, the Tribunal had no choice but to apply the multiplier of 17, the multiplier prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), where the deceased falls in the age group of 26-30 years of age. The Tribunal without assigning any reason or justification has arbitrarily applied 10 as the multiplier. It is because of these errors committed by the Tribunal, the appellants have been awarded a compensation which is far less than the compensation due to them in law. 9. Accordingly, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 23157/- (rounded off to 23000/-), adding 50% towards loss of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 34,500/-. Deducting 1/4th on account of personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 25,875/-. Thus, the annual loss of dependency comes to (25,875 x 12) Rs. 3,10,500/-. Applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 52,78,500/-. 10. Even while awarding compensation under conventional heads, the Tribunal has gone wrong and has arbitrarily fixed the amounts. What should be the amount of compensation payable under different conventional heads is now set at rest by a Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the following sums under different heads:- Loss of dependency Rs. 52,78,500.00 Loss of consortium Appellant No.1 (spousal consortium) Rs. 40,000.00 Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 (parental consortium) @ Rs. 40,000 each Rs. 80,000.00 Appellant Nos.4 & 5(filial consortium) @ Rs. 11. In view of the above, the appellants are held entitled to the following sums under different heads:- Loss of dependency Rs. 52,78,500.00 Loss of consortium Appellant No.1 (spousal consortium) Rs. 40,000.00 Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 (parental consortium) @ Rs. 40,000 each Rs. 80,000.00 Appellant Nos.4 & 5(filial consortium) @ Rs. 40,000/- each Rs. 80,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 55,08,500.00 There shall, however, be no change insofar as interest awarded by the Tribunal and other terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal are concerned. 12. The appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent No.3 shall satisfy the modified award.