JUDGMENT Vipin Chandra Dixit, J. Heard Sri. Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Vipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P.S.R.T.C. and perused the record. 2. This first appeal from order has been filed against the judgment and award dated 01.10.2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 789 of 2003, by which compensation of Rs. 1,58,000/- along with 8% interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-appellants on account of death of Suraj Bahadur aged about 24 years. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is too meager. The claims tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 13 on the age of the parents of the deceased, whereas, law has been settled in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) that the multiplier on the age of the deceased would be applicable. Since, the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospects and only Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses, whereas, claimants are entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 30,000/- for non pecuniary damages. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P.S.R.T.C. does not dispute the aforesaid legal positions. It is submitted that the claims tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, whereas, the deceased was unmarried and as such, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the deduction would be 1/2. 5. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The claims tribunal while applying the multiplier has committed gross illegality in taking into account the age of the claimants who are parents of the deceased, whereas, the appropriate multiplier would 18, looking to the age of deceased i.e. 24 years. The claimants are also entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 30,000/- for non pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673. 7. The claimants are also entitled for 40% future prospects and Rs. 30,000/- for non pecuniary damages in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. 673. 7. In view of above, the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reassessed as under :- 1. Monthly Income Rs. 1,500/- 2. Annual Income Rs. 1,500/- x 12 = Rs. 18,000/- 3. Future prospects (40%) = Rs. 7,200/- 4. Total annual income Rs. 18,000/- + Rs. 7,200/- = Rs. 25,200/- 5. Deduction towards personal expenses (1/2) Rs. 25,200/- - Rs. 12,600/- = Rs. 12,600/- 6. Multiplier applicable (18) Rs. 12,600/- x 18 = Rs. 2,26,800/- 7. Non-pecuniary damages Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs. 2,26,800/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 2,56,800/- 8. The Appeal is hereby partly allowed and award of the Claims Tribunal dated 01.10.2004 is modified and compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,58,000/- to Rs. 2,56,800/-. The claimants-appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of judgment of claims tribunal i.e. 01.10.2004. The respondent Corporation is directed to pay enhanced amount along with the interest to the claimants within two months from today. 9. No order as to costs.