JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kakodkar for the appellants. Respondents though served, are neither present nor represented. This appeal is of the year 2013, and therefore, the same cannot be adjourned any further. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 03.10.2012 made in Claim Petition No.208/2010 to the extent it awards compensation of only Rs.8,03,675/-to the appellants (claimants) even though, the just compensation, in this case, would come to approximately Rs.14,40,000/-. 3. The record bears out that the deceased Shabeer, who died in the motor accident on 25.08.2010 was aged 48 years at the time of his demise and was working as a plumber. The Tribunal has accepted most of the contentions of the claimants but has awarded compensation of only Rs.8,03,675/-. Hence the present appeal. 4. The record bears out that Shabeer was earning Rs.8,000/-per month and this position has been accepted by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The Tribunal has however failed to make any addition towards future prospects. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v/s. Pranay Sethi & Ors.- 2017 (16) SCC 680 (at paragraph 59.4) 25% addition was due towards future prospects. This means that to the yearly income of Rs.96,000/-that Shabeer was earning, an addition of Rs.24,000/-was due. The annual income should therefore have been taken as Rs.1,20,000/-and not merely Rs.96,000/-as held by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 5. In this case, Shabeer was survived by his widow, three children, and two parents. Therefore, deduction towards personal expenses could be to the extent of 25% only. The yearly income should therefore have been taken as Rs.90,000/-. In this case, considering the age of Shabeer, the multiplier applicable would be 13. Thus, the compensation towards dependency would come to Rs.90,000 x 13 = Rs.11,70,000/-. 6. In addition, compensation of Rs.15,000/-was due towards loss of estate and another Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses. Towards consortium, the widow, three children, and the parents are entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/-each i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. 7. The aforesaid means that the just compensation, in this case, would come to Rs.14,40,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.8,03,675/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. During the pendency of this appeal, Shabeer's father expired. Towards consortium, the widow, three children, and the parents are entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/-each i.e. Rs.2,40,000/-. 7. The aforesaid means that the just compensation, in this case, would come to Rs.14,40,000/-as against the compensation of Rs.8,03,675/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. During the pendency of this appeal, Shabeer's father expired. Though all his legal representatives have been brought on record, according to me, his share of compensation should now be made over to his widow i.e. Shabeer's mother. This means that Shabeer's mother will now be entitled to a total of 10% of the total compensation awarded. Balance 90% shall be shared equally by Shabeer's widow on one hand and his three children on the other. The interest rate that is awarded is not disturbed. 9. The appeal is therefore partly allowed and the impugned award is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.8,03,675/-to Rs.14,40,000/-. The apportionment is also modified so that Shabeer's mother will now get 10% of the total compensation awarded together with proportionate interest thereon. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. The respondents, including in particular the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced portion of the compensation together with interest thereon within two months in this Court. Once, such a deposit is made, the Registry to ensure that the same is paid into the bank accounts of the claimants in terms of this Judgment and Award. This exercise should be completed expeditiously particularly because Mr. Kakodkar points out that Shabeer's mother is now in her 80s. The Registry to file necessary compliance reports soon thereafter.