ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Application for deletion of the name of appellant no.2 from the array of the parties, as he has passed away, is allowed. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12TH October, 2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC. APPEAL NO.306/2011 whereby the High Court has modified the Award of the Tribunal. 4. One Bharat Bhushan aged about 20 years suffered injuries in the road accident on 28.12.2005. The said Bharat Bhushan underwent rigorous treatment from Bhraham Shakti Hospital from 28.12.2005 till 11.01.2006. He was later treated at Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital as well as in the L.N. J.P. Hospital where it was learnt that Bharat Bhushan had developed severe jaundice and infection and eventually Bharat Bhushan died due to after effects of head injuries and jaundice on 12.06.2006. 5. The parents of the deceased Bharat Bhushan filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of their son before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,613/-. The Tribunal also added 50% of the income towards loss of future prospects. As he was a bachelor 50% of his income was deducted towards his personal expenses. Taking into account the mother's age of the deceased Bharat Bhushan, multiplier 14' was applied and a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards medical expense, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and miscellaneous expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 6. The respondent-Insurance Company challenged the judgment of the Tribunal before the High Court. The High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,613/-. The High Court held that the claimants are not entitled to any amount towards loss of future prospects. The High Court applied the multiplier 14' and after deducting 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. A total compensation of Rs.4,54,000/- was awarded after adding compensation under other heads. The High Court applied the multiplier 14' and after deducting 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. A total compensation of Rs.4,54,000/- was awarded after adding compensation under other heads. The appellant(s) has called in question the legality and correctness of the judgment of the High Court in this appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that having regard to the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the High Court ought to have awarded 40% of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. Learned counsel further contended that even choice of the multiplier was incorrect as the deceased was 20 years old at the time of his death and the correct multiplier is 18'. It was also contended that the award of compensation towards medical expenses is at lower side. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment of the High Court. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a clerk of an advocate. He was hospitalized for a quite long time. The reason for his death is directly attributable to the accident. Both the Courts have correctly assessed the income of the deceased. However, the age of the deceased should have been taken for application of the multiplier. Therefore, the correct multiplier is 18'. In view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the appellant is entitled to 40% of the income towards loss of future prospects. 50% of the income requires to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the amount payable to the appellant towards loss of dependency is as under: Loss of dependency Rs.3613 x 12 x 18 which comes to Rs.7,80,408/- 40% of the Annual income requires to be added towards future prospects which comes to Rs.3,12,163/- 50% of the same to be deducted towards his personal expenses Rs.5,46,285/- Total amount payable to the appellant Rs.5,46,285/- 11. Having regard to the long period of hospitalization of the deceased and the medical evidence on record, it is just and proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The appellant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- each of his parents (Rs.88,000/-) towards loss of consortium; a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses; and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, a total compensation payable to the claimant/appellant is Rs.7,64,285/-. 12. As noticed above, the High Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,54,000/-which has to be deducted from the total amount of the compensation and consequently the balance payable to the appellant is Rs.3,10,285/-. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit with the Tribunal a sum of Rs.3,10,285/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the deposit within a period of four weeks from today. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the said amount on such deposit. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.