Judgment : (Radhakishan Agrawal, J.) 1. This appeal is by the claimant against the award dated 17.08.2016 passed by Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 144 of 2012 awarding total compensation of Rs. 5,89,500/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on the respondents, jointly and severally. 2. As per claim petition, on 18.06.2012, the respondent No. 1 by driving the offending vehicle i.e. Santro Car bearing registration No. CG 05 A 2898, rashly and negligently, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased Gulshan Kumar bearing registration No. CG 05 A 9854, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and was duly insured with respondent No. 3. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,20,000/- on various heads, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased Gulshan Kumar was liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, is erroneous. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under loss of Future Prospects as the deceased was bachelor. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier 14 on the basis of age of mother of the deceased, but not on the basis of age of the deceased i.e. 18 years and the multiplier should be applied looking to the age of the deceased, which ought to have been awarded looking to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Therefore, the amount of compensation needs to be reassessed suitably. 5. Therefore, the amount of compensation needs to be reassessed suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/insurance company, while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, submits that the accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased Gulshan Kumar who suddenly turned his motorcycle towards petrol pump and this fact has been admitted by NAW-1 Yuvraj Dewangan, who was also pillion rider at the time of accident, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held the deceased liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, which is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, and thus needs no interference by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. As regards contributory negligence, statement of NAW-2, Yuvraj Dewangan, is crucial one. NAW-2 has firstly stated that on the date of accident he was also sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle of the deceased Gulshan Kumar, who, in order to fill the petrol was going to petrol pump at the same time, at 12:30 pm, near Sarvo Dhaba, the offending vehicle was coming in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle vehemently as a result of which deceased sustained injuries and died on 24.08.2012. However, in his cross-examination it is admitted by him that they were going to fill petrol by crossing the road from Kurud Bypass Road to the other side of Raipur-Dhamtari Main Road. It is also admitted by him that deceased who was driving the motorcycle, was going straightaway towards the petrol pump on Kurud Bypass Road whereas this witness was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle at that time. It appears from his evidence that while the deceased was ahead and suddenly taken turn of the motorcycle towards petrol pump which was situated at Kurud Bypass Road and when he took turn, at the same time it appears Santro Car was also coming when he was crossing the road and in that event, the accident occurred. It appears from his evidence that while the deceased was ahead and suddenly taken turn of the motorcycle towards petrol pump which was situated at Kurud Bypass Road and when he took turn, at the same time it appears Santro Car was also coming when he was crossing the road and in that event, the accident occurred. Thus, it appears that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver of the motorcycle also, therefore, looking to the evidence brought on record by the parties and after appreciating the same, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased was also held liable towards contributory negligence to the tune of 50%, which is a finding based on evidence is a correct finding of fact needs no interference by this Court. 8. As regards the income of the deceased, the claimant/appellant has not challenged the income of the deceased. However, the Tribunal, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month and Rs. 72,000/- per annum which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 9. So far as non-grant of future prospects and wrong application of multiplier by the Tribunal is concerned, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held in paragraphs No. 59.4 to 59.7 which read as under; “59.4 In case the 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. 59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.” 10. 59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. 59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.” 10. However, in the present case, the approach of the Tribunal in not granting Future Prospects is not sustainable. AW-1 Hemlata Sahu, mother of the deceased has stated that on the date of incident her son was aged about 18 years and was Bachelor. Further in the Postmortem Report (Ex.P/5), age of the deceased was also mentioned as 18 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the persons who are aged below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, the applicable percentage of future prospects would be 40%. If 40% is added to the total annual income then the total Annual Income would come to Rs. 1,00,800/- (Rs. 72,000+28,800/-). Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/2 towards his personal and living expenses and if 1/2 amount i.e. Rs. 50,400/- is deducted from the total annual income, then the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 50,400/-. The learned Claims Tribunal was not justified in applying multiplier of 14 whereas it should be 18 looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 18 years and if the annual Loss of dependency is multiplied by 18, then the total Loss of Dependency would come to Rs. 9,07,200/-. In addition to this, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,00,000/- towards medical expenses including attendant charges and Rs. 75,000/- towards other conventional heads, which I am of the view does not require any interference. In this way, total compensation amount is worked out to Rs. 15,82,200/-. 11. Since, as already held above that deceased was also negligent to the extent of 50% in causing accident, therefore, the claimant is entitled half of the amount of Rs. 7,91,100/- from total compensation of Rs. 15,82,200/- which would meet the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to get a sum of Rs. 7,91,100/- as total compensation in place of Rs. 5,89,500/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 5,89,500/- after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs. 7,91,100/-, the appellant herein is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 2,01,600/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to get a sum of Rs. 7,91,100/- as total compensation in place of Rs. 5,89,500/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 5,89,500/- after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs. 7,91,100/-, the appellant herein is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 2,01,600/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.