JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.328/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and has awarded of Rs.3,82,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.17,17,000/-on account of death of Mahipal Jain husband of appellant/claimant No.1 and father of appellant/claimant No.2 & 3 in the accident, which took place on 02.09.1995. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia alleged that on 02.09.1995, at 3:55 PM, the deceased, Idrisbhai, was traveling in his own Maruti car (GJ 2-A/3818) with his friends Jalam Singh and Mahipal, heading from Pindwara to Sirohi for personal reasons. About 5 kilometers before Sirohi, at Bari Ghati, a truck (PB 08/2252) coming from the Sirohi direction, driven by respondent No.1 at a high speed and negligently, collided with their Maruti car, which was on the correct side of the road. The car was severely damaged, and all three occupants were seriously injured. Mahipal died on the spot. A scooter driven by Champalal, son of Naiya Ramji Rawal, a resident of Balda Chalaradaka, was following the car and witnessed the incident. Upon inquiry, the truck driver identified himself as Santokh Singh. The car, which was stuck in the front portion of the truck, was extricated, and Idrisbhai and Jalam Singh were taken to Sirohi Hospital for treatment. Idrisbhai succumbed to his injuries during treatment at the hospital. Jalam Singh sustained both minor and severe injuries. Champalal reported the incident to the police on the same day, leading to the registration of FIR No.150/95 under sections 304A, 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The claimants/appellants in the claim petition claimed that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. The respondent No.4-National Insurance Company, in its responses to the claim application, admitted the registration number of the truck PB 08/2252 and that respondents No. 2 and 3 are the owners. 3. The claimants/appellants in the claim petition claimed that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. The respondent No.4-National Insurance Company, in its responses to the claim application, admitted the registration number of the truck PB 08/2252 and that respondents No. 2 and 3 are the owners. It was also admitted that the truck was insured with the company from 22.10.1994 to 21.10.1995 but denied the remaining allegations. The Insurance company alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Idrisbhai, who was driving the Maruti car at high speed and recklessly, colliding with the truck. It was alleged that the Maruti car was on the wrong side of the road, making the truck driver not at fault. Hence, respondent No. 4-National Insurance Company is not liable for compensation and prayed that if the Tribunal finds the truck driver partly at fault, the National Insurance company's liability should be limited to contributory negligence and further requested the dismissal of the claim application against it. 5. The respondent No.6 -United India Insurance Company, in its response, accepted that the Maruti car (GJ 2-A/3818) was insured with it from 30.06.1995 to 15.11.1995 but denied the remaining allegations. It was alleged that the accident was due to the negligence of the truck driver -respondent No. 1, and that the truck's insurance company is liable for compensation. It was requested that if it is found that the accident was due to the Maruti driver's negligence, compensation should be based on contributory negligence and further requested for the dismissal of the claim application filed against them. 6. The legal heirs of the Maruti driver, Idrisbhai i.e. respondent No.5, in their response denied the facts presented and argued that the accident was not due to Idrisbhai's fault. It was pointed out that after the police investigation, the police authorities had also filed challan against the truck driver i.e. respondent No. 1. It was claimed that the Maruti driver and owner were wrongfully made parties to the case without any basis and requested for the dismissal of any compensation claims against them. It was prayed that if it is found that the accident was due to the Maruti driver's negligence, the responsibility for compensation lies with respondent No. 6, United India Insurance Company, as the car was insured with it at the time of the accident. 7. It was prayed that if it is found that the accident was due to the Maruti driver's negligence, the responsibility for compensation lies with respondent No. 6, United India Insurance Company, as the car was insured with it at the time of the accident. 7. On 03.08.2000, National Insurance Company respondent No.4 filed an amended response, stating that on the day of the accident i.e. 02.09.1995, Santokh Singh -respondent No. 1 only had a license to drive light vehicles and motorcycles, not heavy vehicles. Therefore, since Santokh Singh did not have a valid driving license for heavy vehicles, the company is not liable for compensation. It was requested for the dismissal of the application against it. 8. No response was filed by respondent No. 1 -truck driver and respondent No. 2 truck owner. 9. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed seven issues including relief, which inter-alia reads as under : ^^1- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 o 3 ds LokfeRo ds Vªd dks vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d u o dkj pkyd e`rd bnjh'k HkkbZ us dkj dks rst jQrkj o ykijokgh ls pykdj fnukad 2-9-95 dks nksigj 4-15 cts fljksgh] fljksgh] jksM+ jktekxZ ij ckjh?kkVk {kS= esa nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh vkSj nq?kZVuk esa igqaph ?kkrd pksVksa ls eghiky dh e`R;q gqbZ\ 2- vk;k izkFkhZx.k :i;s 17]17]000@& eqvkotk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k nq?kZVuk vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d dh ykijokgh ls ?kfVr gqbZ gS ,oa vizkFkhZ la[;k 6 eqvkotk gsrq ftEesokj ugha gS\ 4- vk;k nq?kZVuk e`rd bnjh'k HkkbZ dh ykijokgh ls gqbZ gS vkSj vizkFkhZ la[;k 4 eqvkotk gsrq ftEesokj ugha gS\ 5- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k 4 o 6 va'knk;h ;ksxnku rd eqvkotk gsrq ftEesokj gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\** 10. In support of their claim petition, claimants examined AW-1 Sharmila, the wife of the deceased Mahipal Jain, presented her husband's birth certificate as Exhibit 1 and the post-mortem report as Exhibit 8. 11. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the parties and considering the record of the case vide its judgment and award dated 11.07.2003 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of claimants to the tune of Rs.3,82,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon non-claimant Nos.1 to 4. 12. The appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal seeking enhancement of the award. 13. 12. The appellants/claimants have preferred the instant misc. appeal seeking enhancement of the award. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the issue with respect to quantum of compensation has not been decided properly. He submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in law and fact by limiting the compensation to Rs.3,82,000/-, contrary to well-settled law on compensation assessment. The finding on issue no. 2 should be modified and the compensation should be enhanced as claimed. It was argued that the deceased was a healthy 34-year-old share broker with a net monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal wrongly assessed the annual income at Rs.40,000/-, ignoring the pleaded and proven income and future prospects and failed to consider the likelihood of income increase. It was further argued that the Tribunal did not properly consider the evidence of A.W.1 Sharmila and A.W.2 Jitendra Kumar. Despite no rebuttal from the respondents, the Tribunal based its findings on conjectures and surmises, ignoring the unchallenged evidence. 14. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal neglected to adequately consider future prospects and career advancements, which should augment the multiplicand. The deceased's income would not have remained stagnant and a suitable monthly increase should have been determined. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded for loss of company, consortium, love and affection is meager. Appellant-claimant No.1 lost her husband at 26, and appellant-claimant No. 2 and 3 lost their father's care forever. The awarded amount should be suitably enhanced. It is also submitted that the Tribunal applied a lower multiplier inappropriate for the deceased’s age and family longevity. A higher multiplier and multiplicand should be applied considering the deceased's future prospects. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal failed to award compensation for the loss of estate and funeral expenses, which should be granted as claimed and the Tribunal awarded an inadequate interest rate of 8% per annum. The rate should be enhanced to 12% or 15% per authoritative precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 16. The instant appeal was admitted and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2016 dispensed service upon respondent No.3. 17. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 16. The instant appeal was admitted and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2016 dispensed service upon respondent No.3. 17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 18. This Court finds that there is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount towards future prospects and also erred in applying the multiplier of 15 only and the same should be 16. This Court is also of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to received Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , this Court is of the view the appellant/claimant is entitled to future prospects to the extent of 40%, which is quantified as under : Annual Income as per ITR + Future Prospectus (40%) Rs.35,370/- + Rs.14,148/- Rs.49,518/- Rs.49,518 - 1/3 Deduct for Personal Expenses since there are three dependents - 16,506/- Annual Income after 1/3 deduction Rs.33,012/- Multiplier of 16 (33,103 x 16 = 5,28,192/-) Rs.5,28,192/- Consortium (48,000 x 3 for each) 1,44,000/- Funeral Expenses 18,000/- Loss of Estate 18,000/- Total 7,08,192/- Less Awarded awarded by the Tribunal 3,82,000/- Enhanced Award Rs.3,26,192/- 19. Thus while adding 40% towards future prospects and other heads, as mentioned in the table aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate that the appellants/claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.3,26,192/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation to the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which the claimants shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount. 20. The misc. appeal stands partly allowed. No costs.