JUDGMENT anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved with the judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Court of Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (Raj.) (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 343/2015, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,24,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the claimants-respondents on account of death of Summera in an accident occurred in 27.07.2010. 2. The Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-respondents. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, appellant - Insurance Company has submitted the instant appeal, inter alia, on various grounds. 4. Firstly, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the claimants-respondents are not dependents of the deceased, the claimant-respondent No. 1 is sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased and claimants-respondents No. 2 to 4 are nephews of the deceased, hence, they are not entitled to claim any amount of compensation. 5. Secondly, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was unmarried, hence, the deduction of 1/2 should have been applied while passing the impugned award, but the Tribunal has erred in applying the deduction of 1/4. 6. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that as per the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in aIR (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Tribunal has erred in applying 50 per cent of the assessed income towards future prospects. While as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount towards future prospects should have been considered as 40 per cent. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that under the conventional head an exorbitant amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- has been awarded and lastly counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that the rate of interest @ 9% is also exorbitant. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that as per the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, ahmedabad Vs. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that as per the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and anr., reported in aIR 1987 SC (6) 1690, 'In India the family consists brothers, sisters, brother's children sometimes foster children live together and they are treated as dependents upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is expired on account of motor vehicle accident, then they are entitled to get compensation and there is no justification to deny them compensation.' Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further submitted that the instant case is a peculiar case in which husband and in-laws of the claimant-respondent have already expired and the deceased was the only bread-winner of the family upon whom the entire family was dependent. 8. In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents-claimants further placed reliance upon the recent judgment delivered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of National 9. Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors., reported in aIR 2020 SC 434 , in that matter also other family members of the deceased were treated as dependents to get compensation. Counsel for the respondents-claimants further submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality while passing the award under various heads, hence, the impugned award does not warrant any interference of this Court. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 11. So far as the first objection taken by the appellant-Insurance Company that the claimants-respondents are not dependents of the deceased is not tenable in the eye of law and the same is contrary to the analogy which has already decided by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra) and in the case of Birender Singh (supra). Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where there was no other earning male member in the family, as the husband and the father-in-law of the claimant-respondent were expired and the entire family of the claimants-respondents was fully dependent upon the deceased who was the sole bread-winner of the entire family. 12. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where there was no other earning male member in the family, as the husband and the father-in-law of the claimant-respondent were expired and the entire family of the claimants-respondents was fully dependent upon the deceased who was the sole bread-winner of the entire family. 12. So far as the second contention raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company with regard to deduction of 1/4 is concerned, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has considered the entire peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and came to the right conclusion. Counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that under the conventional head, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported in 2018 (MaCT) SC 273 has granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimants towards the loss of consortium. Counsel for the respondents-claimants is fair enough in considering the fact that as per the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get 40 per cent for future prospects towards loss of income. 13. after considering the arguments raised by both the parties, the amount of compensation awarded is re-computed as under: annual income Rs. 4,000 x12 = Rs.48,000/- per annum Multiplier to be applied 16 48,000 X 16 = Rs.7,68,000/- Less 1/4 deduction Rs.7,68,000 - Rs. 1,92,000 = Rs. 5,76,000/- add 40 per cent towards future prospects Rs. 5,76,000 + Rs. 2,30,400 = Rs. 8,06,400/- add general expenses (conventional) Rs. 1,60,000/- Total compensation awardable Rs. 9,66,400/- Less re-computed award amount Rs. 10,24,000 - Rs.9,66,400 = Rs.57,600/- Decreased amount of compensation Rs. 57,600/- 14. Thus, the claimants-respondents would be entitled to get total amount of compensation of Rs. 9,66,400/-. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is disposed with the modification as indicated above. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of 9 per cent per annum is reduced to 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 15. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the modified amount of award to the claimants-respondents. 16. all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 17. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of 9 per cent per annum is reduced to 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 15. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the modified amount of award to the claimants-respondents. 16. all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 17. Registry is directed to send back the record of the Tribunal forthwith.