JUDGMENT 1. These are miscellaneous appeals respectively filed by the claimants and the Insurance Company under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved of award dtd. 15/4/2011 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Court No.2, Bhopal in MCC No.1995/2009. 2. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is claiming future prospect in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 3. Shri Siddhant Kochar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the contrary submits that he is challenging the award on three grounds, namely Tribunal has made one 5th deduction which should have been in fact 1/4th. Similarly, tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17 which should have been 16 in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Thirdly, according to him, since deceased was a probationer in Corporation Bank, therefore, future prospect cannot be given to the claimants. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, there is no dispute that in place of deduction of 1/5th applied by the tribunal, actual deduction should be 1/4th. Similarly, there is also no dispute that tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17 whereas it should be 16. However, I am not in agreement with submission made by Shri Siddhant Kochar that future prospect is not to be awarded as deceased was a probationer and not a confirmed employee. In fact, there is no such classification made by Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). There are only two classifications namely salaried employee and self- employed. In case of salaried employee up to the age of 40, future prospect is 50%, it is 40% in case of self-employed. Therefore, third argument put-forth by Siddhant Kochar deserves to be rejected and is rejected. However, his two submissions in regard to deduction and multiplier are accepted and to this extent, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. 5. Similarly, in above terms, there is no dispute that tribunal has computed annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,28,240.00 per annum. Therefore, third argument put-forth by Siddhant Kochar deserves to be rejected and is rejected. However, his two submissions in regard to deduction and multiplier are accepted and to this extent, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. 5. Similarly, in above terms, there is no dispute that tribunal has computed annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,28,240.00 per annum. When 1/4th deduction is made then gross annual income will come out to Rs.1,71,180.00 on which 50% is to be added towards future prospect taking total annual dependency of the family to Rs.2,56,770.00 when multiplier of 16 is applied then total pecuniary compensation will come out to Rs.41,08,320.00. Over and above this Rs.70,000.00 is to be added towards non-pecuniary and taking total compensation to Rs.41,78,320.00 against a sum of Rs.31,14,064.00 awarded by learned claims tribunal, therefore, there will be enhancement of Rs.10,64,256.00. This enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual date of payment. 6. In above terms, these appeals are disposed of. Lower Court record be sent back.