JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Sabarkantha at Idar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 154 of 2017, the appellants-original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). 2. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants and Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-National Insurance Company Ltd. Though served, no one appears for other respondents No. 1 and 2 who are driver and owner of the Motorcycle involved in the accident respectively. Respondent No. 3 has not denied its liability. 3. In light of the aforesaid fact and at the request of learned advocates for the appellants and the Insurance Company, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. Learned advocates for the parties have also provided copies of evidence adduced before learned Tribunal for perusal of this Court. 4. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal: 4.1 That on 16.10.2017, the husband of the appellant No. 1, namely Ajaykumar Mukeshbhai Solanki was coming towards the Idar from Vadali on Motorcycle No. GJ-09-CQ-1698 as pillion rider, which was driven by the respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner. It is submitted that when they reached near Gambhirpura Village at that time the respondent No. 1 due to excessive speed dashed with one person and then lost control over the motorcycle and met with an accident. It is submitted that due to accident pillion rider Ajaykumar fallen down on road, sustained serious injuries, which resulted into death of deceased. 4.2 It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was 23 years old on the date of accident and was serving as Sweeper in Jan Seva Kendra and also driving Rickshaw and earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. 4.3 The appellants filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,63,500/- along with costs and interest @ 8.75% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the appellants have filed present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. 20,000/- p.m. 4.3 The appellants filed Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,63,500/- along with costs and interest @ 8.75% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the appellants have filed present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned advocate for the appellants has raised the following contentions: (i) That the Tribunal has committed an error while considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- p.m. as the deceased was serving as Sweeper in Jan Seva Kendra and also driving rickshaw and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. (ii) That the Tribunal has committed an error while considering the future prospective income of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered 25% prospective income of the deceased instead of 50% looking to the age of the deceased on the date of accident. (iii) That the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs. 70,000/- under the different conventional heads. (iv) That the Tribunal failed to consider the directions delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , while fixing the amount of dependency loss, which shows that the award is contrary to law and facts and therefore, the same is required to be enhanced. On the aforesaid contentions, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that present appeal be allowed. 6. Per contra, Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for respondent No. 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has supported the impugned judgment and award. He contended that in absence of the evidence of income, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the amount of monthly income of Rs.4,500/- p.m. and has not committed any error while computing the amount of compensation. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/5 towards the personal expenses though there are six claimants and as per the decision of the Pranay Shetty the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 of amount towards the personal expenses. Therefore, the award is just and proper. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, on perusal of the impugned judgment and award and also considering the evidence on record, it appears that the Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency on the basis of monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the award is just and proper. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, on perusal of the impugned judgment and award and also considering the evidence on record, it appears that the Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency on the basis of monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. It further appears that the Tribunal has considered future prospective income of the deceased at 25% despite the fact that deceased was only 23 years old. In view of this Court, the Tribunal has observed that the deceased was doing work of sweeper at Dr. Chhaganbhai and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- and certificate produced at Exhibit-42 but no oral evidence was examined. Hence, looking to the nature of work undertaken by the deceased, the Tribunal has failed to consider the income/wage of skilled labour as well as the Price Index of the relevant years. 8. In view of the above, I am of the view that income of the deceased be considered Rs.6,500/- p.m and fix the same for the purpose of computing the amount of loss of dependency. Further, it is required to be noted that while fixing the amount of loss of dependency, future prospective income of the deceased be considered 40% instead of 25%. 9. Towards personal expenses 1/4 of the amount be deducted instead of 1/5 considering the fact that there are six claimants, as per the ratio laid down in case of Pranay Shetty (Supra). 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appellants claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency is as under: Compensation As per Award under challenge Calculation in First Appeal (A) Future Loss (i) Actual Income 4,500 6,500 (ii) Prospective Income 4,500 (50%) 9,100 (40%) (iii) Deduction of amount spent by the decd. on himself 900(1/5) 2,275(1/4) (iv) Future Loss Per Annum 4,500 x 12 = 54,000 6,825 x 12 = 81,900 (v) Multiplier 18 18 (A) Future Loss 5,02,200 5,02,200 (B) Conventional Amount 70,000 70,000 Total Compensation 10,63,500 15,65,700 Interest 7% 7% 11. As far as compensation under the conventional heads is concerned, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), the appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. The claimant have incurred medical expenses of Rs.21,500/- which is already awarded. Thus, the appellants would be entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,65,700/-. 12. The claimant have incurred medical expenses of Rs.21,500/- which is already awarded. Thus, the appellants would be entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,65,700/-. 12. Total amount of the award comes to Rs.15,65,700/-. The learned Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.10,63,500/-. The present respondents are therefore entitled to Rs.5,02,200/- to be rounded of @ Rs.5,00,000/ -as enhanced amount of compensation along with 7% from the date of application filed before the Tribunal on the enhanced amount of compensation. The National Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation alongwith interest before the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Consequently the civil application is disposed of. 14. In view of above, judgment and award dated dated 20.04.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Sabarkantha at Idar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 154 of 2017 is modified to the aforesaid extent. After the amount of compensation alongwith interest is deposited the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount in favour of the original claimants after proper verification within a period of eight weeks. 15. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.