Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

Unsatisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.06.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara in MAC Case No. 315/2009, the claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement.

2. The undisputed facts which are relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 27.12.2008, late Raja Ali, unmarried son of the claimant, Yunus Ali was travelling in an Auto Van bearing registration No. AS-01/DC-345 from Guwahati towards Goalpara. Another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01/AC-3717 was coming from the opposite direction and collided with the vehicle in which late Raja Ali was travelling. As a result of the accident, two persons including the son of the claimant died instantaneously. The vehicle No. AS-01/AC-3717 was insured with Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 1.

3. I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate, and therefore, pressed for enhancement of the award, particularly, on account of funeral expenses, future prospects and loss of dependency. So far the enhancement on account of funeral expenses and future prospects, are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents have not resisted such prayer seriously.

Funeral Expenses:

5. Learned Tribunal in the instant case awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54, minimum Rs. 25,000/- ought to have been awarded towards funeral expenses. In the case of Rajesh (supra), the Apex Court held that

"therefore we are of the view that it will be just, equitable, fair and reasonable under the head of funeral expenses, in absence of evidence to the contrary, at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/-".

In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record to prove that funeral expenses incurred by the claimant was more than 25,000/-. Therefore, in view of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (supra), funeral expenses deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.

Future Prospect:

6. Learned Tribunal in the instant case added 30% of the income of the deceased to the actual income as future prospect. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was 20 years of age and therefore in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sontosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2012) 6 SCC 421, 50% of the income ought to have been added to the actual income as future prospect. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Since the deceased was 20 years of age, future prospect should have been added to the extent of 50% and in my view, the claimant deserves enhancement of future prospect to the extent of 50% of the actual income in the instant case.

Loss of Dependency :

7. In the case in hand, deceased being a bachelor and the claim petition having been filed by the father of the deceased, learned Tribunal took the multiplier 5 with reference to the age of the claimant, for purpose of computing loss of dependency. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corp. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121; Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2012 ACJ 2002; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan reported in 2013 ACJ 1253, and Munnalal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 contended that multiplier ought to have been taken as 18 with reference to the age of the deceased, but the learned Tribunal committed an error by selecting multiplier 5 with reference to the age of the claim