As per case facts, Claimant Jeewana Devi filed a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation for her son's death in a road accident caused by rash ... and negligent driving. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, but both the Insurance Company and the claimant appealed. The Insurance Company disputed the vehicle's involvement and the deceased's income addition, while the claimant sought higher compensation due to inadequate award, wrong multiplier, and incorrect deductions. The question arose whether the MACT had correctly determined the compensation, especially concerning the deceased's age, future prospects, income tax deductions, and the appropriate multiplier, to ensure 'just compensation' under the M.V. Act. Finally, the High Court found that the MACT erred in determining the deceased's age and applying the wrong multiplier. It re-calculated the annual income by adding 50% for future prospects, deducted income tax at 10% from the taxable amount, and applied a multiplier of 17 based on the deceased's correct age of 28 years. The court also clarified deductions for a bachelor's personal expenses and awarded amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, enhancing the latter as per precedent. Consequently, the High Court allowed the claimant's appeal for enhancement and dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal.