The modification of compensation based on loss of future prospects and general damages is affirmed under pertinent legal principles.

1. Learned advocate for both the parties are ad idem on the point that the instant appeal may be disposed of giving a go - by to the technicalities involved in the process.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Ashique Mondal, learned advocate for the appellants / claimants, that since appellants / claimants have been suffering from financial distress for want of sufficiency of money for their sustenance, the appeal may be disposed of on the basis of materials furnished by both the parties to this case, which is not opposed by the learned advocate representing the insurance company / respondent No. 1.

3. When learned advocates for both the parties are agreeable to the expeditious disposal of the instant appeal, the court should not stand in the way.

4. Mr. Ashique Mondal, learned advocate representing the appellants / claimants, files paper - book in court. The same may be kept with the record.

5. The instant appeal has emerged out against the judgment and award dated 29.4.2014, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (3rd Court at Alipore), South 24 - Parganas, in MAC Case No. 72 of 2011, in a claim under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, granting award to the tune of Rs. 66,53,540 to the claimants / appellants for the death of one Biplab Ranjan Biswas in a vehicular accident occurred on 6.8.2011 by reason of involvement of vehicle bearing No. WB 29-3837 in consequence of rash and negligent driving.

6. The compensation was awarded upon consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary, with which the appellants / claimants were not satisfied. Hence this appeal.

7. In course of hearing of this appeal, all the points raised are squeezed into two; one pertaining to non - consideration of future prospects leading to inadequate quantification of the award, and the other relating to 'general damages', though granted at the rate of Rs. 9,500, but according to appel - lants / claimants, it should have been Rs. 70,000 as per settled proposition of law.

8. While making elaboration of the points, referred hereinabove, Mr. Mondal submits that learned Tribunal has erred in law by not granting loss of future prospects in spite of the deceased remaining in permanent employment as a Medical Officer under the Government of West Bengal.

9. The deceased / victim left this world when he was 49 years old, leaving behind three dependants.

10. As regards inadequate amount of general damages to the extent of Rs. 9,500, Mr. Mondal submits with all intensity that the amount should have been fixed at Rs. 70,000, instead of Rs. 9,500, as erroneously granted in this case.

11. Reliance is thus placed by Mr. Mondal on the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), to fortify the points raised in this appeal.

12. Relying upon such decision Mr. Mondal submits that claimants are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 30 per cent of the income of the deceased.

13. Per contra, Mr. Sanjoy Paul, learned advocate representing the respondent No. 1 - insurance company, submits that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation amount upon considering pros and cons of the case and no further enhancement is necessary. Therefore, no interference at this stage is called for.

14. Having considered the submission thus advanced by both the parties, and bearing in mind the proposition of law as already decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) together with the precedence of this court on the point of future prospect