2. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. One Ranbir Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 29.05.2000 due to the composite rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. HR-46/8105, and Truck No. HR-46-2488. Both the offending vehicles were admi1edly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company.

3. The parents and minor brother of the deceased instituted a claim petition seeking compensation from the drivers, owners and the insurer of both the vehicles. The learned Tribunal, vide Award dated 08.01.2002, assessed total compensation at ₹2,02,000/- along with interest, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.

4. The present appeal is confined to the question of enhancement of compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at ₹3,000/- per month is not disputed, the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 8 on the basis of the age of the parents, instead of applying the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased. It is contended that such approach is contrary to se1led legal principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company fairly does not dispute the legal position that the multiplier ought to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased and not that of the dependents.

7. In view of the undisputed position, this Court proceeds to reassess the compensation in accordance with se1led law.

8. The monthly income of the deceased is taken as ₹3,000/-, which translates into an annual income of ₹36,000/-. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora(cid:22)on and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 and subsequent judgments, 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects, the deceased being a young person with no permanent employment. Consequently, the annual income a=er addition of future prospects works out to ₹50,400/-.

9. The deceased was unmarried. As per the legal position clarified in Sarla Verma (supra), in the case of an unmarried deceased, ordinarily only the mother is treated as a dependent, whereas the father and siblings are not considered dependents unless specific evidence suggests otherwise. The minor brother of the deceased is deemed to be dependent upon the father and cannot be treated as a dependent of the deceased. Accordingly, deduction towards personal and living expenses is required to be made to the extent of 50%.

10. A=er making the said deduction, the annual loss of dependency comes to ₹25,200/-.

11. The multiplier applicable is required to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased. Applying the appropriate multiplier of

18, the total loss of dependency works out to ₹4,53,600/- (₹25,200 × 18).

12. Apart from loss of dependency, the claimants are also entitled to compensation under conventional heads. Considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 2000, a sum of ₹5,000/- each is awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

13. Further, following the se1led principle that parents and siblings are entitled to compensation for loss of filial consortium, an amount of ₹12,000/- each is awarded to the three claimants, aggregating to ₹36,000/-

under the said head.

14. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is recalculated as under:

(cid:1) Loss of dependency: ₹4,53,600/-

(cid:1) Funeral expenses: ₹5,000/-

(cid:1) Loss of estate: ₹5,000/-

(cid:1) Loss of filial consortium: ₹36,000/-

Total compensa%on: ₹4,99,600/-

15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the appellants- claimants are entitled to total compensation of ₹4,99,600/-. Since an amount of ₹2,02,000/- has already been awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation comes to ₹2,97,600/-.

16. The enhanced