JUDGMENT : It appears from the record that Mrs. Suchitra Pandey, was appointed by the JHALSA on behalf of the claimants. Record further suggests that on last 2- 3 dates Mrs. Suchitra Pandey has not appeared in this matter. Accordingly, Mrs. Priyanka Boby, present in the court, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court on behalf of claimants. 2. Heard Mrs. Priyanka Boby, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellants/claimants, Mr. Jay Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 3. Aggrieved with award dated 23.12.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-II-cum-P.O. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Claim Case No. 25/2008, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. Mrs. Priyanka Boby, learned amicus curiae appearing for the claimants submits that on 30.04.2006 at about 3.00 P.M. one Bablu Khan in injured condition gave a fardbeyan before a police officer of Senha P.S. at Sadar Hospital, Lohardaga stating therein that the same day at about 12 O’clock the informant alongwith seven other persons including a woman have boarded on a truck bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531 and were travelling from Lohardaga to Ghagra. The aforesaid truck was being driven by its driver in very rash and negligent manner and when the said truck reached near Bagraon Chimni Bhatta all of a sudden one another truck bearing Registration No. BR 42G 4236 which was coming towards Ghagra and it was driven by its driver with rash and negligent manner and dashed the truck no. BR 14-7531 due to which the empty truck no. BR 14-7531 turned over towards western direction in the meantime one another truck bearing Registration No. BVP 8503 came with rash and negligent manner and dashed the empty truck no. BR. 14-7531, which resulted the person boarded in the truck sustained grievous injuries and two persons died on spot and rest injured persons were taken to Lohardaga Sadar Hospital whereon one person died and remaining injured persons were referred and sent to RIMS, Hospital Ranchi. She further submits that in the said accident three persons died and rest persons received serious injuries for that F.I.R. was registered and claim application was filed. She further submits that in the said accident three persons died and rest persons received serious injuries for that F.I.R. was registered and claim application was filed. She submits that learned tribunal has not calculated the amount in correct perspective. She further submits that future prospect has not been added in the awarded amount in terms of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 5. Mr. D.C. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 – National Insurance Company Limited submits that awarded amount has already been satisfied by the Insurance Company. He submits that there is no illegality in the awarded amount. 6. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6-the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd submits that awarded amount has already been satisfied by the Insurance Company. He submits that there is no illegality in the award and no interference is required by this Court. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that Owner of Truck bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531 has not satisfied the awarded amount. 8. On query by this Court as to whether the owner of the said vehicle has preferred any appeal or not, Mr. Mahtha, fairly submits that the owner has not preferred any appeal. 9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the award and finds that the learned tribunal framed eight issues to decide the claim application. While deciding Issue No. V with regard to violation of policy and valid premium, the learned tribunal has held that so far as two vehicles are concerned they were insured by the two different Insurance Companies and there was no violation on behalf of two trucks and accordingly, Insurance Company were directed to pay the amount in question. So far as owner of truck bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531 is concerned, the learned tribunal has given clear cut finding about the violation of terms and condition of policy and accordingly, the owner of said truck was directed to pay compensation in terms of award. Thus, the court finds that so far as deciding issue no. V, there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned tribunal. Thus, the court finds that so far as deciding issue no. V, there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned tribunal. The Court has gone through the award particularly the calculation which is the main subject matter of this appeal which has been filed for enhancement and finds that the learned tribunal has calculated the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- and admittedly the deceased were the labourers and their monthly income was claimed to the tune of Rs. 4,500/-. The learned tribunal after giving reasons has considered the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-, the court finds that there is no illegality, so far as assessing the income of the deceased. 10. Further it appears that there are dependency of seven persons and in that view of the matter in place of 1/4th deduction on the account of personal expenses is required to be 1/5th deduction in view of judgment in the case of “Sarla Verma & Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another” (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 11. The Court further finds that there is no amount provided in the future prospect which is required to be added in view of Pranay Sethi (supra). The Court finds that learned tribunal under the conventional head has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection. There is no head in so far as loss of love and affection is concerned, in that view of the matter that part is required to be modified. Accordingly, the court directs that in the calculated amount future prospect 40% shall be added. In place of 1/4th deduction on the account of personal expenses shall be 1/5th considering the number of dependency of the deceased. Accordingly, that part is modified and in the conventional head in view of Pranay Sethi (supra), it is required to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- accordingly that head is modified to the extent that in the conventional head the claimants are entitled to amount of Rs. 70,000/-. Accordingly, award is modified to the above extent. 12. The enhanced amount shall be paid equally by the two insurance company namely, National Insurance Company Limited and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and the owner of Truck bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531 13. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 70,000/-. Accordingly, award is modified to the above extent. 12. The enhanced amount shall be paid equally by the two insurance company namely, National Insurance Company Limited and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and the owner of Truck bearing Registration No. BR 14 7531 13. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending, I.A, if any, stands, disposed of.