ORDER : 1. Insurance Company is in appeal against the award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in Title Suit (Compensation) Case No. 208/2011 whereby and whereunder the liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount. 2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company that the compensation awarded is excessive and the documents filed in support of monthly income, are full of contradiction. It is submitted that the deceased had no bright academic record which shall be evident from the educational certificate adduced into evidence on his behalf being Exhibit 6 which is the statement of marks issued by the Gujarat University for First B.B.A. with respect to the exam held in April, 2007 in which he had failed. Further, in matriculation examination (Exhibit 4) also, the deceased had obtained poor marks and therefore, claim of being employed only four months before the accident as Financial Relation Officer, is not convincing. There is further discrepancy in the age as appearing in the educational certificate which is 06.09.1988, whereas in his driving license (Exhibit 3), his age has been shown to be 06.09.1986. It is argued that in view of the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs. Divisional Manager & Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , where the claimant has not preferred appeal, rather the appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company or the owner, the compensation cannot be enhanced. 4. In reply, it is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of claimant and rightly so that the educational qualification cannot be the sole criteria for assessing the future potential of the student. In this case, the appointment letter (Exhibit 1) along with the payment vouchers issued for the months of June, July and August marked as Exhibit 2, 2/1 and 2/2, wherein his income has been shown as Rs.23,000/- on the basis of which learned Tribunal has computed compensation amount. It is further argued that although appeal has not been preferred, but in view of the settled law, the claimant is entitled to fair and just compensation, needs to be awarded under the head of future prospect which has not been allowed. It is further argued that although appeal has not been preferred, but in view of the settled law, the claimant is entitled to fair and just compensation, needs to be awarded under the head of future prospect which has not been allowed. Very meagre amount has been allowed for a sum of Rs.5000/- under non-conventional heads, which is not as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, this Court is of the view that where documentary and oral evidence have been led on behalf of the claimant regarding income of the deceased at the time of accident, the educational excellence is not relevant while computing compensation. 6. There is no impediment in awarding just compensation by enhancing the same when the appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the quantum of compensation as held by the Apex Court in (Ranjana Prakash) supra that where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. 7. There is merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the complainant that the marks obtained in the school or college examination, cannot be the sole index to assess the employability and earning capacity of a person. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any infirmity in accepting Rs.23,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. So far age of the deceased is concerned, the adjudication in a claim case is limited to assessment of income and age so that just and fair compensation can be awarded. Discrepancy appearing in the age of the deceased, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the entire documents on record. However, in such cases, only a higher age can be considered for computing the multiplier of the deceased. Taking 06.09.1986 as the date of birth of the deceased, the age of the deceased at the time of accident shall work out to be 25 years, multiplier will be applicable as 18, future prospect 40%, the final compensation amount will work out as under: - Annual Income Rs. Taking 06.09.1986 as the date of birth of the deceased, the age of the deceased at the time of accident shall work out to be 25 years, multiplier will be applicable as 18, future prospect 40%, the final compensation amount will work out as under: - Annual Income Rs. 23,000 x 12 Rs. 2,76,000/- Annual dependency after deducting 50% on the living and personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 1,38,000/- Loss of dependency on taking a multiplier of 18 Rs. 1,38,000 x 18 = Rs. 24,84,000/- Future prospect @ 40% 40% of Rs. 24,84,000/- Rs. 9,93,600/- Conventional head Rs. 84,000/- Total Rs. 35,61,600/- 8. Under the circumstance, the Insurance Company is directed to make payment of Rs. 35,61,600/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim application, within a month of the order, which shall be disbursed to the claimants by the Tribunal on terms fixed by it. 9. Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed with modification in the award. 10. Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants in adjustment to the final compensation amount. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.