JUDGMENT 1. Assailing the award dated 29.11.2011 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 33/2011, on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case the appellants-claimants had filed IA No. 4794/2018 for extending the amount of compensation, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2019. Thus, the appellants have extended the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Since the Tribunal has found that the accident has occurred and in the accident Bobby @ Ekant Jatav has died, therefore, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to the manner the accident has occurred, to burden the judgment on the said issues. This appeal is being decided only on the point of inadequacy of the compensation. 4. In this appeal, learned counsel for the claimants prayed that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assuming notional income of Rs.2,500/- per month, despite the fact that at the time of accident in the year 2011, Collector's rate for skilled labourer was prevailing as Rs.4,425/- per month. The deceased was doing the work relating to marble and granite, therefore considering the fact that he was a skilled labourer, his monthly income ought to have been assessed as Rs.4,425/-. The deceased died at the age of 20 years but the Tribunal has observed on the basis of expert's opinion (doctor's opinion) that the deceased died at the age of 17 years, therefore, considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others 2018 (I) JLJ 200 = [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], future prospect should be awarded @ 40%. It is further submitted that looking to the dependency, i.e., deceased's mother and two sisters, the multiplier be enhanced from 14 to 18 in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble apex Court in Smt. Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corp. and another [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. It is further submitted that looking to the dependency, i.e., deceased's mother and two sisters, the multiplier be enhanced from 14 to 18 in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble apex Court in Smt. Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corp. and another [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ]. It is also submitted that 6% rate of interest has been awarded by the Tribunal, which be also enhanced. Hence, prayed that the amount under award should be enhanced reasonably. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the submissions and have submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assumed the monthly income of the deceased, therefore, no interference is required to be made by this Court. 6. On going through the record, it is found that on the basis of expert's opinion (doctor's opinion) the Tribunal has rightly observed that at the time of accident deceased Bobby @ Ekant Jatav was aged 17 years and therefore, considering the fact that skilled labourer cannot be engaged on regular basis, the Tribunal awarded compensation counting 25 days in a month. The monthly income assumed by the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be on lower side because it is observed that the deceased was a skilled labourer, therefore, in the interest of justice, notional income of Rs.2500/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.3500/- per month, on which multiplier of 18 is to be applied in the light of the judgment in Sarala Verma's case (supra). Since the deceased was unmarried, therefore, 50% amount of salary can be deducted against the deceased's personal expenses. However, since the incident took place in the year 2011, therefore, change of rate of interest, as prayed for, is not justifiable. Further, since the deceased was 17 years of the age at the time of accident, therefore, the appellants are entitled to get future prospect as observed in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellants are entitled to the compensation as under :- Heads Compensation Awarded Income Rs.3,500/- per month Future Prospects Rs.1,400/- per month (i.e., 40% of the income) Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs.2,450/- per month (i.e., 50% of the total income (3,500+1,400) Total Income after deduction of personal expenses Rs. 2450/- per month (4,900-2,450) Multiplier 18 Loss of future income Rs. 2450/- per month (4,900-2,450) Multiplier 18 Loss of future income Rs. 5,29,200/- (Rs.2450 x 12 x Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Estate, love and affection and pain & suffering, etc. Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation Payable Rs. 5,99,200/- 8. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,17,000/-. Thus, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to receive enhanced amount of Rs.3,82,200/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, making the total compensation of Rs.5,99,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the realisation. The said amount be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment passed by this Court. 9. In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.