JUDGMENT 1. With consent, heard finally. 2. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 31.10.2012 passed by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim case No. 117/2010. 3. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,41,500/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Mahesh Singh, aged 39 years who died in motor vehicle accident on 5.9.2010. According to claimants (wife, two sons, father, mother and grand mother of deceased), the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/ evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent ? 4. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 5.9.2010, deceased Mahesh Singh Tomar who was driver of the truck and had gone to Orrisa, on the way, he parked his truck on the road side at Harianta Chauk and he was standing near his truck. At that time, driver of the offending truck bearing Registration No. MP06-HC-0305 came driving his truck in rash and negligent manner and dashed the truck of the deceased, due to which, deceased sustained grievous hurts and succumbed to the same on the spot and one Ramniwas sustained grievous injuries. Claimants therefore, filed claim case before the Claims Tribunal. 5. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal after assessing income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and holding that deceased was spending 1/5 on himself as personal expenses and amount of dependency came to Rs.28,800/- and applying the multiplier of 15 as per the age of deceased and Rs.2000/-towards conventional heads and Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,41,500/- in total. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 3 and son of appellants No.4 and 5 and grandson of appellant No.6. He used to earn the money and spent it to meet the expenses of the family. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 3 and son of appellants No.4 and 5 and grandson of appellant No.6. He used to earn the money and spent it to meet the expenses of the family. Due to his death, the family suffered great monetary loss. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submits that the learned tribunal assessed the yearly income of the deceased @ Rs.36,000/-per annum and after deducting 1/5 towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 15. It is submitted that the income of the deceased is assessed on lower side as he was a truck driver and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. It is submitted that on other heads also amount awarded is on lower side. It is further submitted that no amount under the head future prospects has been awarded looking to the age of deceased, who was only 39 years of age at the time of accident and was having long future life. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 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 39 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 v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2018(1) JLJ 200 = [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ], 50% of monthly salary to be awarded towards future prospects. 7. 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. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper and do not deserve any enhancement. 9. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. 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. 9. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. 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 the year 2010 and family of the deceased was depended upon him, since at the time of accident, deceased Mahesh Singh Tomar was a Driver of the truck and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and same is hereby assessed at Rs.4,000/- 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.” 11. Accordingly the income of deceased is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects same comes to Rs.4,000 + 1,600= 5,600/- per month and Rs.67,200/- per annum, after deducting 1/5 towards self expenditure, loss of dependency come to Rs.53760/-. Thus after applying multiplier of 15 as per age, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,06,400/-. 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/- and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,06,400 + 70,000 = 8,76,400/-. is also on lower side and therefore, same is quantified to Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,06,400 + 70,000 = 8,76,400/-. The Claims Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.4,41,500/- towards compensation, therefore, claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.4,34,900/- (Rupees Four Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Only). 12. 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.4,34,900/- 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 fail 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. 13. The instant appeal is allowed in part, accordingly. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.