VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard.

Appellants have filed this appeal claiming that compensation as awarded by the Court of Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Tract Court), Gwalior in Claim Case No. 33/2006 vide award dated 19.03.2007, is on the lower side inasmuch as the Claims Tribunal has erred in computing the income at Rs. 1,80,000/-, whereas when there were income-tax returns of last 05 years on the record and the return for the year 2004-05 demonstrated the income of Rs. 2,01,889/-, then that income should have been taken as the basis and on the basis of that income, the award should have been passed.

2. It is also submitted that the appellants are entitled for adding 30% of the income for future prospects and besides this, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding adequate compensation for loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, etc., and therefore under these heads in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Asha Verman & Others v. Maharaj Singh & Others as reported in 2015 (2) TAC 299 (SC), the impugned award needs to be enhanced.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that enhancement of income for future prospects @ 30% will not be applicable in the case of appellant in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : 2009 (II) T.A.C.671 (SC) looking to the fact that at the time of incident, the age of the deceased was 54 years. He further submits that this issue of addition of future prospects has already been referred to the Larger Bench as to whether a person, who is self-employed or employed in a private firm and is not deriving any salary, will be entitled to future prospects or not? In this regard, he has referred to the judgment in the case of Shashikala v. Ganga Laxmanamma as reported in 2015 ACJ 1239. He also submits that there is no need to enhance the income as average of four years has been rightly taken by the Claims Tribunal.

4. After appreciation of the arguments and going through the documents available on record, this Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate. Similarly, claimant No. 1 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium. Similarly, both the children are also entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection due to death of their father instead of Rs. 5,000/- each awarded by the learned Tribunal. Similarly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. So the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and physical and mental sufferings is enhanced from Rs. 27,500/- to Rs. 4,25,000/-. Thus, the enhanced amount under these heads comes to Rs. 3,97,500/- besides the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

5. Similarly, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,80,000/- as mentioned in paragraph 17 of the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal and after deducting ? self expenses of the deceased, the annual income for assessing dependency is calculated at Rs. 1,33,333/- and by applying a multiplier of 11, the total amount of compensation of Rs. 14,66,663/- is awarded to the claimants instead of Rs. 13,20,000/-. Hence, the enhanced amount of income under the head of dependency comes to Rs. 1,46,663/-.

6. Since the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.01.2012 and was restored on 04.05.2016, therefore, the appellants-claimants will not be entitled to interest for a period of four years, during which the appeal remained dismissed and was not restored for the fault of the appellants. Therefore, the appellants will be entitled to the interest as awar