SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for New India Insurance Company.

2. The claimants/appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 04.02.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Etawah/VIII District and Sessions Judge Etawah in M.A.C.P. No.-1/1994 (Jitendra Kumar Jain & Another v. Sri Ashok Kumar Jain & Another).

3. The claimants/appellants who are the parents of one Anurag Jain had instituted a claim petition praying for compensation of Rs. 6,13,500/- for the death of their son in an accident with Truck No.- M.P.-23-D-3347 alleged to have taken place on 27.08.1993.

4. The claim petition was contested by the owner of Truck No.- M.P.-23-D-3347. The owner of the Truck denied its liability to pay the compensation, and further stated that the vehicle was insured with the New India Insurance Company on the date of accident. Thus, the New India Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

5. The New India Insurance Company had filed written statement denying its liability to pay any compensation. It further pleaded that the compensation prayed for by the claimants was highly excessive.

6. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 65,500/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants.

7. The counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding the income of deceased Rs. 1,000/- per month. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others 2013 (4) T.A.C. 5 (S.C.) has held the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- per annum in the case of minor. Thus, the submission is that the compensation should be computed treating the income of deceased minor to be Rs. 30,000/- per annum. He further submits that the multiplier of 10 applied by the Tribunal for computing the compensation is wrong and the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15 as the age of the deceased was 10 years. He further submits that the claimants/appellants are entitled to future prospect. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in awarding any amount towards funeral expenses, and further a very meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded towards pain and suffering.

8. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants the counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the accident had taken place on 27.08.1993 and therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the facts of the present case is just and proper.

9. We have heard rival submission of the parties. We have perused the finding of the Tribunal on the issue no.- 5 regarding quantification of compensation. We find that the Tribunal has held income of deceased to be Rs. 1,000/- per month on the ground that the father of the deceased was educated, and the deceased would have received good education had he been alive. The Tribunal further held that after completing the education, the deceased must have been earning Rs. 1,000/- per month. The Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (Supra) has held the income of minor to be Rs. 30,000/- Per annum, thus we proceed to hold on the basis of Apex Court Judgment that the income of the deceased should be treated to be Rs. 30,000/- per annum for the purpose of computation of compensation.

10. So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant regarding the multiplier, we find that the Tribunal on mere presumption has applied the multiplier of 10. As per the settled law the multiplier provided in the case of 2009 (6) SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others), should be applied. Accordingly, we provide that the compensation should be computed by applying multiplier of 15 instead of 10 as has been done by the Tribunal.

11. So far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant regarding future prospect is concerned, we have held in F.A.F.O. Defective No.-311 of 1997 decided on 02.02.2018 that future prospect