JUDGMENT 1. The appeal under Sec. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by award dtd. 27/1/2010 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Morena in Claim Case No.162/2008, whereby, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4, 99, 500.00 in all towards compensation for the death of deceased Dhruvsingh alias Banti Sikarwar to the appellants/claimants. Appellant No. 1 is wife of deceased, appellants No. 2 and 3 are children of deceased and appellant No. 4 is father of deceased. However, liability for payment of amount of compensation was fixed over the respondents jointly and severally. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that deceased- Dhruvsingh alias Banti Sikarwar being 29 years old hale and hearty, industrious and responsible youngster was the husband of appellant/claimant No.1 Uma Devi, father of the appellant No.2 and 3 and son of appellant No. 4 who was running a hotel and was earning Rs.7, 500.00 per month. All the appellants/claimants are his legal heirs who were completely dependent upon him. 3. On the fateful day i.e. 8/5/2008, Dhruvsingh was driving the motorcycle and Pradeep Singh was a pillion rider on the motorcycle were going towards New Housing Board Colony from Berial Chauraha by their side in a normal speed. As soon as the said vehicle came the house of Mr. Radhacharan Sharma, Advocate at Morena, all of a sudden, respondent No.2 drove his vehicle Tata Sumo Victa bearing Registration No. H.R.37/B-3893 from the side of Berial Chauraha rashly and negligently and dashed against the said motorcycle, on account of which, Dhruv Singh alias Banti and Pradeep sustained grievous injury on different parts of the body. Both were taken to the hospital at Morena wherefrom deceased was referred to J.A. Hospital Gwalior and from where his family members took him to Sahara Hospital, Gwalior for better treatment and during treatment he scummed to the injuries on 18/5/2008. 4. On the date of incident, said Tata Sumo Victa was of the ownership of respondent No.1 insured with respondent No.3 and driven by respondent No.2 (who was the employee of respondent No.1), rashly and negligently and caused accident in question, due to which, Dhruv Singh died. 4. On the date of incident, said Tata Sumo Victa was of the ownership of respondent No.1 insured with respondent No.3 and driven by respondent No.2 (who was the employee of respondent No.1), rashly and negligently and caused accident in question, due to which, Dhruv Singh died. Therefore, as per facts and allegations all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation on account of death having been occurred due to the said accident. 5. An application under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was preferred for claims before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.39, 60, 000.00. After notices and statement of parties and going trhough the record, the tribunal by allowing the claim preferred by the appellants/claimants in part awarded them an amount of Rs.4, 99, 500.00 breakup of which is as under:- 6. According to submissions of the appellants/complainants, deceased- Dhruv Singh was running a Hotel and he was earning Rs.7, 500.00 per month, therefore, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs.3, 000.00 per month. Whereas, from the rent receipts Ex. P-159 to 183 it is clear that deceased was running his hotel in two shops and was paying rent of Rs.800.00 for each shop. Meaning thereby, he was paying rent of Rs.1, 600.00 for both the shops per month and from this fact it can be assumed that he was earning more than Rs.7, 500.00 per month. 7. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that no sum has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head future prospects, whereas, deceased was only 29 years of age at the time of death and therefore, in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 50% of monthly salary to be awarded towards future prospects. 8. Further, the amount awarded by the trial Court to the appellants/claimants under the head of funeral expenses, loss of estate is also on the lower side. It is also submitted that looking to the number of dependents upon deceased, Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 towards self expenditure instead it should be 1/4. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of amount of compensation on the respondents jointly and severally. It is also submitted that looking to the number of dependents upon deceased, Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 towards self expenditure instead it should be 1/4. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of amount of compensation on the respondents jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied upon the judgments in the cases of Rashmita Biswal and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2022 (1) T.A.C. 24 (S.C.), in the case of Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and Others Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, 2013 ACJ 2733 , and Romi and Ors. Vs. Rakesh and Ors., 2013 (1) (M.P.) 155. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company argued in support of impugned award. He also submitted that Claims Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 18 whereas in the light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 121, for the age group 26, to 30 multiplier of 17 will be applicable. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment in the case of Retu and Others Vs. Dharmveer and others, 212 ACJ 579, and Sunitabhai and others Vs. Sumersingh and others, 2014 ACJ 128 in support of his arguments. 11. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 12. Having gone through the evidence adduced by the appellants/claimants and after taking into consideration all the evidence on record, the amount awarded by the tribunal appears to be on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced. Keeping in view the above and the fact that accident occurred in year 2008 and family of the deceased was depended upon him and at the time of accident, deceased Dhruv Singh was running a Hotel, Claims Tribunal based its finding regarding income of deceased to be Rs.3, 000.00 per month on the ground that no document regarding running hotel has been produced; whereas, from the rent receipts produced by claimants and exhibited as Ex. P-159 to 183, it is clear that he was paying a rent of Rs.1600.00 per month for running his hotel and considering this fact, in the opinion of this Court, his income can easily be assessed at Rs.5, 000.00 per month. P-159 to 183, it is clear that he was paying a rent of Rs.1600.00 per month for running his hotel and considering this fact, in the opinion of this Court, his income can easily be assessed at Rs.5, 000.00 per month. Further, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any sum under the head future prospects in light of decision of Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Relevant para i.e. 59.4 of the said decision is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "59.4. In case of deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component." 13. As regards applicability of multiplier, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) in para 42 discussed the use of multiplier as per age group and for ready reference same is reproduced hereinbelow:- "42. We therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , U.P. SRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 428), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 ( for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." Thus, Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of 18 and instead it should be 17 in light of aforesaid decision. 14. 14. Accordingly the income of deceased is assessed at Rs.5, 000.00 per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects same comes to Rs.5, 000.00+2000=7, 000- per month and Rs.84, 000.00 per annum, after deducting 1/4 towards self expenditure, loss of dependency come to Rs.63, 000.00. Thus after applying multiplier of 17 as per age, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10, 71, 000.00. In the opinion of this Court the sum awarded by Claims Tribunal under the heads funeral expenses, vehicle hire etc. is also on lower side and therefore, same is quantified to Rs.15, 000.00 and Rs.40, 000.00 towards loss of consortium and Rs.15, 000.00 towards loss of estate. Findings of Trial Court regarding expenditure of Rs.56, 000.00 towards medical expenses is maintained. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation to the tune of Rs.10, 71, 000.00+ 70, 000 + 56, 000/- =11, 97, 000. The Claims Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.4, 99, 500.00 towards compensation, therefore, claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.6, 97, 500.00 (Rs. Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Five Hundred only). 15. In view of the forgoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The appellants are held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs.6, 97, 500.00 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of award shall not carry any interest however, if respondents failed to make the payment of compensation jointly and severely within a period of three months from today, then the enhanced amount of award shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Rest of the conditions as imposed by Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. However, claimants are directed to pay the Court fees over the amount of compensation awarded in addition to amount of compensation claimed in this appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, else, the instant order would not be given effect to . 16. The instant appeal is allowed in part, accordingly. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.