JUDGMENT 1. - Having lost the bread earner of the family, Mr. Maliram Agarwal, and having been granted a compensation of merely Rs. 1,45,500/-, the appellants have challenged the award dated 25.3.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (in short, 'the learned Tribunal'). 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 21.8.2004, Maliram, was going from village Napawali to Neem Ka Thana. At about 9:30 AM, while he was riding in a bus, bearing registration No. RJ.32.P 0079, the conductor of the bus, told Maliram, alongwith some passengers, to sit on the roof of bus. The driver of the bus drove the bus rashly and negligently. Consequently, near the field of Kalyan Meena, the bus touched an electric wire. Resultantly, Maliram, fell down from the bus and sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently he died. The appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Being aggrieved from the said compensation, the appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement. 3. Mr. Harsh Saini, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised two contentions before this Court; firstly, despite the fact that ample evidence exists on record to show that Maliram was running a fancy store in the village, yet the learned Tribunal has assessed his income as merely Rs. 1,500/- per month. Secondly, despite the fact that the appellant NQ. 1 has lost her husband, no compensation whatsoever was granted under the category of "loss of consortium". 4. On the other hand, Mr. Satyendra Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Mr. D.V. Tholia, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have contended that the appellants have not submitted any documentary evidence to prove that the appellants have not submitted any documentary evidence to prove that Maliram was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from his business by running a fancy store. In fact, no evidence was produced to prove the existence of the store. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. With regard to non-payment of loss of consortium, the learned counsel have fairly conceded, and in our view rightly so, the loss of consortium should be compensated by the learned Tribunal. 5. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that he was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. With regard to non-payment of loss of consortium, the learned counsel have fairly conceded, and in our view rightly so, the loss of consortium should be compensated by the learned Tribunal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the impugned award and examined the documents available on record. 6. As far as the income of Maliram is concerned, two witnesses have been examined on this point, namely Anil Kumar (A.W. 1) and Sumer Singh (A.W. 2) Anil Kumar (A.W. 1), Maliram's son, has stated in his examination-in-chief that his father was running a fancy store and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, in his cross-examination he admits that his father did not maintain any accounts of the shop. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the statement of Anil Kumar to conclude that there is no evidence that the deceased was running a fancy store. However, the learned Tribunal has ignored the testimony of Mr. Sumer Singh, who happens to be an independent witness in the present case. Both in his examination-in-chief and in his cross-examination, Mr. Sumer Singh states that Maliram was running a fancy store. Considering the fact that an independent witness has stated that Maliram was running a fancy store, the learned Tribunal was not justified in concluding that he was earning merely Rs. 1,500/- per month. Moreover, such an assessment is below the minimum wages payable to a person at the relevant time. Therefore, the assessment is unsustainable. Considering the fact that Maliram was running a fancy store in a village, -.,,bald be reasonable to conclude that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, as the accident occurred in the year 2004. Thus, while calculating the "loss of dependency", the income of Maliram should be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Considering the fact that he would have increased his income in future, taking the future prospect into account, it is reasonable to conclude that he would have earned Rs. 5,000/- per month. Since, he would have spent one-third of the said amount upon himself, i.e., Rs. 1,667/-, he would have spent two-third upon his family, i.e., Rs. 3,333/-. Therefore, the loss of dependency shall be calculated as Rs. 3,333 x 11 x 12 = Rs. 4,39,956/-. 7. 5,000/- per month. Since, he would have spent one-third of the said amount upon himself, i.e., Rs. 1,667/-, he would have spent two-third upon his family, i.e., Rs. 3,333/-. Therefore, the loss of dependency shall be calculated as Rs. 3,333 x 11 x 12 = Rs. 4,39,956/-. 7. The death of a husband can never truly be compensated in monetary terms. Only an attempt can be made to fill the gap left by the sudden death by awarding just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. While awarding the compensation, the learned tribunal should be sensitive to the condition of widow in the Indian Society. Once a woman loses her husband, the widow, for all practical purpose, is abandoned, neglected and forgotten by the society. Not only mentally, but even financially, she is reduced to hand and mouth existence. Considering the plight of the widow, this Court has no hesitation for granting Rs. 20,000/- under the category of "loss of consortium". 8. With these observations, this appeal is allowed and award dated 25.3.2006 stands modified as under: Rs. (i) Under the category of Loss of dependency (Rs. 3,333/- x 11 x 12)/- 4,39,956/- (ii) Under the category of loss of consortium Total 20,000/- -------------------- Rs. 4,59,956/- -------------------- 9. The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the insurance Company pays the enhanced amount, after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellants, alongwith the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., from 23.9.2004 till the date of realisation. 10. The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the remaining compensation amount is paid to the appellants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 11. This appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned award is modified as stated above.Appeal Allowed. *******