JUDGMENT : The appellants were the petitioners in O.P. (MV) No.284/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 2. The concise facts in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are: the 1st petitioner is the widow of Thoufeek (deceased), who died in a motor accident on 18.1.2002. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased and the 4th petitioner is the child born in the wedlock between the deceased and the 1st petitioner. It is pleaded in the claim petition that, on 18.1.2002 while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.TC-76-95, a bus bearing Reg. No. KL 8/B-151 (offending vehicle) driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. The 1st respondent is the owner of the bus and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. The deceased was aged 27 years on the date of accident. The deceased was the sole bread-winner of the family. The deceased was working as a Store Keeper-cum-Cashier and getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-plus allowances. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioners a compensation of Rs.6,48,000/-,which was limited to Rs.6,00,000/-, with interest and proportionate costs. 3. The 1st respondent was absent and was set ex parte. 4. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition. 5. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition, but it was admitted that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy. The 3rd respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any amount towards compensation. 6. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A6 in evidence. The 3rd respondent produced and marked Ext.B1 (Insurance Policy) in evidence. Neither party adduced any oral evidence. 7. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any amount towards compensation. 6. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A6 in evidence. The 3rd respondent produced and marked Ext.B1 (Insurance Policy) in evidence. Neither party adduced any oral evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to realise an amount of Rs.3,28,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation amount. 8. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are in appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/3rd respondent. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners argued that the Tribunal has gone wrong in not awarding adequate compensation under the conventional heads as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a plethora of decisions. He also contended that in view of the categoric declaration of law in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others [2020 (3) KLT 760], the appellants are also entitled to future prospects. Similarly, even though the petitioners are four in number and were dependants on the deceased, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the compensation towards personal living expenses of the deceased, which should have been 1/4th. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent argued that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. The only mistake in the award is that the Tribnal wrongly adopted the multiplier of 18, which is actualy 17, in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). It was also contended that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal living expenses of the deceased because the 4th petitioner was a child in the womb at the time of accident and, therefore, was not a dependant on the deceased. She submitted that the Tribunal has already awarded just compensation to the appellants. Hence,they are not entitled for any further enhancement of compensation, and the appeal be dismissed. 12. She submitted that the Tribunal has already awarded just compensation to the appellants. Hence,they are not entitled for any further enhancement of compensation, and the appeal be dismissed. 12. The question that emanates for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased is just and reasonable? 13. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], has held that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standards. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 14. Ext.A2 charge-sheet filed by the Police, has proved the fact that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Undisputedly, the offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. Ext.B1 Policy produced by the 3rd respondent substantiates that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy. Ext.A3 inquest report and Ext.A4 post-mortem certificate proves that the deceased died on account of the accident that occurred on 18.1.2002. Therefore, it stands proved beyond doubt that the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 18.1.2002, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the 2nd respondent, which was insured with the 3rd respondent. Hence the liability of the 3rd respondent stands substantiated. 15. The principal area of dispute in the appeal is with regard to the notional income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal. In the claim petition, the petitioners had claimed that the deceased was a Store Keeper-cum-Cashier having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- plus allowances. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. 16. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] and in Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. In the claim petition, the petitioners had claimed that the deceased was a Store Keeper-cum-Cashier having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- plus allowances. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-. 16. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] and in Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in year 2004 at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month and for a vegetable vendor at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month in the year 2006, respectively. 17. Following the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the the notional income of the deceased can safely be re-fixed at Rs.3,000/-per month. Accordingly, I fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month. 18. The next area of dispute is whether 1/3rd or 1/4th has to be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd towards the personal living expenses of the deceased, without taking into account the fact that the 4th appellant/4th petitioner was a dependant on the deceased, as on the date of his death, as the child was in the womb. 19. Undisputedly, the 4th appellant was impleaded in the claim petition, after her birth, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in I.A No.2865/2003. It is no one's case that the 4th appellant was not the child conceived to the 1st appellant in her wedlock with the deceased. Even though the child was not born as on the date of death of the deceased, the child was certainly a dependant on the deceased-her father. It was only due to the death of the deceased, the child has lost support, love and affection of her father. If the father was alive, it would have been his statutory liability to maintain the child. Certainly, the 4th appellant is a dependant on the deceased. In the said circumstances, I am of the definite opinion that 1/4th of the total compensation has to be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. Certainly, the 4th appellant is a dependant on the deceased. In the said circumstances, I am of the definite opinion that 1/4th of the total compensation has to be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. Although the 4th appellant was in the womb on the date of accident, after her birth, she has become a dependent of the deceased. Hence, I deduct only 1/4th of the total compensation towards the personal living expense of the deceased. 20. It is seen from the impugned award that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18 taking into account the age of the 1st petitioner. Going by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ] the multiplier of the deceased has to be taken into account who was 27 years of age at the time of the death. Therefore, the correct multiplier is 17. 21. Now coming to the conventional heads, i.e, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium. It is seen that the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/-, nil and Rs.15,000/- respectively under the above three heads. 22. In light of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra), the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of claim 'funeral expenses. Rs.15,000/- under the head 'loss of estate' and Rs.40,000/- each under the head spousal consortium, parental consortium and filal consortium. Thus, they are entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,60,000/- under the said head 'loss of consortium'. 23. Even though the petitioners had claimed transportation expenses, no amount was granted under the said head of claim, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards 'transportation expenses'. Similarly, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.500/- under the head 'clothing'. 24. It is no longer res-integra in view of the categoric declaration of law in Pranay Sethi (supra) followed by the most recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar [ AIR 2020 SC 4424 ] that the dependents of a deceased are entitled for future prospects. 25. In the case on hand, the deceased was self employed and aged 27 years. 25. In the case on hand, the deceased was self employed and aged 27 years. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to 40% towards future prospects. Therefore, the total compensation under the head 'loss of dependency with future prospects' has to be enhanced to Rs.6,42,600/- instead of Rs.2,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 26. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, materials on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the aforecited decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the appellants/petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference. Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded (in rupees) Amounts modified and recalculated by this Court 1. Transport to hospital 1,000 2. Clothing 5,00 3. Funeral expenses 5,000 15,000 4. Pain and sufferings 5,000 5,000 5. Love and affection 15,000 - 6. Loss of estate 15,000 7. Loss of consortium 15,000 1,60,000 8. Loss of dependancy 2,88,000 6,42,600 Total Rs.3,28,000 8,39,100 In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.5,11,100/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the additional compensation with interest and proportionate costs granted in this appeal before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability of the appellants/petitioners towards the balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of enhanced compensation to the appellants/petitioners shall be done by the Tribunal, in accordance with law.