The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles from relevant cases to determine just and reasonable compensation for the claimants in a motor accident claims case.

1. The appellants are parents and minor brother and sister of the deceased Gajanan, aged 21 years, who died in accident on 28.10.2013. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jalgaon by judgment dt. 11.01.2016 in MACP No. 343/2013, awarded compensation of Rs. 7,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Still, the claimants expect higher compensation and they have preferred this appeal.

2. Shri. M. M. Bhokarikar, learned counsel for the appellants argued that, the deceased was aged 21 years and was getting gross salary of Rs. 6045/-. The Tribunal erred in taking his salary at Rs. 5,000/- by wrongly considering the deductions. The Tribunal awarded future prospects at the rate of 30%. Those should have been awarded at the rate of 50%, as per the law prevailing then, but, now in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 (Bench of 5 Judges), the future prospects should be quantified at 40% with multiplier of 18 and there should be proportionate enhancement. He fairly conceded that, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the compensation under conventional heads should be Rs. 30,000/- only. He submitted that, claimant Nos.3 and 4 were aged 17 and 15 years and were dependants on the deceased. They should be taken into consideration while deducting the amount towards personal expenses. It should be 1/4th and not 1/3rd.

3. Per contra, learned advocate Shri. Gatne for respondent No. 2 submitted that, the deceased was working as a daily labourer. The employer examined by the claimants have given admission to that effect. He was getting Rs. 242/- per day. Therefore, he cannot be treated as an employee with fixed salary so as to grant him enhancement under the head of future prospects. He also relied on various judgments to submit that the conveyance allowance and other benefits, which do not go to the family, should not be taken as part of the salary. He argued that, in case of person having parents, normally his brother and sister who are dependant on his father cannot be said to be dependants on the deceased and they cannot be counted for determining the share for deduction of personal expenses. The rulings cited by both the parties shall be considered in due course.

4. The points for my consideration with my findings thereon are as follows:

Sr. No.	Point	Finding
1	Whether the deceased was a person on fixed salary entitled for future compensation?	...In the affirmative.
2	What is the salary of the deceased to be considered for grant of compensation?	Rs. 5430/+ future prospects 40% = Rs. 7602/- per month.
3	Whether the learned Tribunal has not granted just and reasonable compensation to the claimants?	Yes. Compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,51,016/- with interest @7.5% p.a. and proportionate costs.
4	What Order?	The appeal is partly allowed.

REASONS

5. The evidence on record shows that, deceased Gajanan was aged 21 years. His father and mother were aged 45 and 40 years, and brother and sister were aged 17 and 15 years, respectively. The occupation of father, brother and sister is shown as labourer. The deceased was appointed in a company as an employee through contractor. The claimants pleaded that, the deceased was getting Rs. 220/- per day whereas; CW2 Vitthal has stated that he was paying Rs. 242/- per day as per Minimum Wages Act, but he was getting work everyday. The certificate about wages was at the rate of Rs. 242/- per day only, but later on CW2 has produced its official record showing salary of the deceased.

6. There is evidence and finding of the Tribunal that, on 28.10.2013 at about 5:30 pm, the deceased Gajanan was proceeding on his bike and one Luxury bus owned by respondent No. 1 insured with respondent No. 2 gave him a dash which resulted into death of Gajanan instantaneously. The drive