H. K. RA THOD, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel for appellants original-claimants and learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Gade for respondent No.3. 2. Through this appeal, appellants original-claimants have challenged judgment and award made by Claims Tribunal (Auxl.) at Baroda in M.A.C.P. No. 252 of 1979 dated 10-3-1981 wherein Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,21,6701- in favour of claimants. In this appeal, while challenging said award, claimants are praying for enhancing it by Rs. 1,00,0001- and have paid court fees on Rs. 1,00,0001- in this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel for appellants has submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed gross error while considering income of deceased from two sources, one from M/s. Kaduji & Co., and another from M/s. Mahudawala & Co. He submitted that yearly income from both the partnership firm received by deceased as per assessment order of 1973 and 1974 comes to Rs. 7898/in Mahudawala and Co. and Rs. 18499/- in M/s. Kaduji & Co., therefore, total amount comes to Rs. 26,397/-, but instead of that, Claims Tribunal has taken datum figure of Rs. 10,0001- being income per year of deceased, therefore, learned Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that if datum figure is to be taken into account, then, it comes to 50% of total of both amount, but that has not been done by Claims Tribunal and in doing so, Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in assessing annual income of deceased. He submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount for obsequia1 ceremony as against demand made by claimants as discussed in Paragraph 16. As per his submission, Claims Tribunal has also erred in not awarding any amount for pain, shock and suffering as well as medical treatment as well as prescriptions for medicines Exhs. 45 to SO. Exh. 44 is the prescription of Dr. H. V. Raval, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Medical College, S.S.G. Hospital, Baroda. Claims Tribunal has believed that it is true that applicant No. 1 has incurred expenses for her treatment, there is no evidence what type of ailment has been developed. Claims Tribunal has observed that it cannot be gathered from prescriptions and neither Dr. Khurana nor Dr. Raval has been examined, no medical certificate of either of doctor has been produced, and therefore, claimants are not entitled for any compensation on that count. Learned Advocate Mr. Claims Tribunal has observed that it cannot be gathered from prescriptions and neither Dr. Khurana nor Dr. Raval has been examined, no medical certificate of either of doctor has been produced, and therefore, claimants are not entitled for any compensation on that count. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in not awarding any amount of compensation in that regard and award of Claims Tribunal is required to be enhanced because at the time of death, deceased was aged 32 years. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Gade for respondent No. 3 has seriously opposed submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Patel for appellants and submitted that Claims Tribunal has rightly examined matter and datum figure has also been rightly assessed for considering annual income of deceased and Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in making award in question, and therefore, award in question does not require any interference of this Court. 5. I have considered submissions made by learned Advocates for both sides. 1 have perused impugned award made by Claims Tribunal. I have considered Paras 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 of award in particular while considering income from two sources means two companies for same period. total income of which comes to Rs. 26,3971- but instead of that, without any base or reason, Claims Tribunal has held that income of deceased can be fixed at Rs. 10,0001- per year as datum figure. Then, Claims Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 looking to age of deceased, 32 years, at the time of accident. Paras 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 of award are reproduced as under : "13. From the above evidence, it is borne out that the income of the deceased during the last years was much less and particularly when deceased was a partner in Mahudawala & Company in comparision to his income while he was a partner of Kaduji & Company in earlier years. It is borne out from the evidence of witness Ochhavalal Chhaganlal a clerk in the firm of M/s. Kaduji & Company examined at Exh. 51 that the said firm was managed by the deceased while he was a partner of the same. It is borne out from the evidence of Mohmmedsalim Ismailbhai Partner of Mahudawala & Company examined at Exh. It is borne out from the evidence of witness Ochhavalal Chhaganlal a clerk in the firm of M/s. Kaduji & Company examined at Exh. 51 that the said firm was managed by the deceased while he was a partner of the same. It is borne out from the evidence of Mohmmedsalim Ismailbhai Partner of Mahudawala & Company examined at Exh. 81 that the deceased was the main managing partner and that gradually there was an increase in the income of the firm every year. Lastly, the income of the deceased of his share from the income of the partnership firm of Mahudawala & Company was Rs. 78981- while for the assessment year 1973-1974 the income of the deceased as a partner of Kaduji & Company was Rs. 18,4991-. Looking to the above stated circumstances the income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per year as the datum figure. 14. From the above datum figure one unit comes to Rs. 1111/- :- The proper multiplier to be applied in the present case would be 15 since the age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of accident. In the case of Union Co-operative Insurance Company Limited v. Bharatiben, reported in 1978 GLR 820 the deceased was aged 32 years and multiplier of 15 was adopted. According to this calculation, deduction two units of the deceased each of the major applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 would be each entitled to Rs. 33,334/- and the minor applicant No.2 would be entitled to Rs. 16,667/-. To this compensation of Rs. 5000/- towards loss of expectation of life has to be added as approved in case of Khodabhai Hirji {Khodabhai Bhagwanbhai & Ors. v. Hirji Tapu & Anr.], reported in 1980 GLR 187 . Therefore, each of the major applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are entitled to Rs. 1428-60, Rs. 714-30 paise on this head. 16. The claimants have claimed compensation on the head of obsequiel ceremonies. During the course of argument, Rs. 2000/- are claimed on this head. If anything certain in this life is the death. Deceased was to die one day or the other. In that case also, expenses would have been incurred for obsequiel ceremonies. The applicants are therefore, not entitled to any compensation on this head. 17. During the course of argument, Rs. 2000/- are claimed on this head. If anything certain in this life is the death. Deceased was to die one day or the other. In that case also, expenses would have been incurred for obsequiel ceremonies. The applicants are therefore, not entitled to any compensation on this head. 17. The claimants have claimed compensation on the head of pain, shock and sufferings on account of the death of the deceased and in particular by applicant No.1, the widow. She has deposed that she is unable to bear the loss of her husband. On account of the death of her husband, she has suffered a shock and she is not keeping well. She was admitted as indoor patient in the S.S.G. Hospital, Baroda for 15 days. She was taking the treatment of Dr. Khurana and still the treatment is continued. She has deposed that her mind has become weak and some times, she becomes unconscious. On this point, Shri Gandhi, learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon aforesaid Bharatiben's case, 1978 GLR 820 . In this case, it has been held that : "Damages for nervous shock caused by the sight of an accident to a close relative can be awarded. However, such damages cannot be awarded for grief or sorrow caused by the death of a close relative because in any event such death would have caused much sorrow and mourning. In other words, to claim damages on account of the mental shock and sufferings there must be positive evidence showing that there is something more than mere sorrow or grief or mourning and that additional or extra-element has taken the form of any recognizable psychiatric illness which is attributable and really wholly attributable to the misfortune of having actually witnessed accident. It is important to note that damages on this head even if admissible, they can be given only when the close relative of the deceased has actually witnessed accident. In other words, the accident has taken place within his/her sight." Now turning to the facts of this case, it is very clear that neither applicant No. 1 nor rest of the applicants have witnessed the actual accident. Therefore, neither applicant No. 1 nor rest of the applicants are entitled to any compensation on this head. 18. In other words, the accident has taken place within his/her sight." Now turning to the facts of this case, it is very clear that neither applicant No. 1 nor rest of the applicants have witnessed the actual accident. Therefore, neither applicant No. 1 nor rest of the applicants are entitled to any compensation on this head. 18. No doubt, from the evidence on record, it is borne out that applicant has taken the treatment of Dr. Khurana Professor of Psychiatry, Medical College, S.S.G. Hospital, Baroda vide prescriptions of the medicine at Exhs. 45 to 50. Exh. 44 is the prescription of Dr. H. V. Raval, Asstt. Professor of Psychiatry Medical College, S.S.G. Hospital Baroda. It is true, the applicant No. 1 has incurred expenses for her treatment. There is no evidence what type of ailment has developed. It cannot be gathered from the prescription, Neither Dr. Khurana nor Dr. Raval has been examined. No medical certificate of either of the doctor has been produced. The result is that the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to compensation as aforesaid only. They are entitled to get the same from all the opponents who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly." 6. According to my opinion, Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in not considering future prospects of a young man of 32 years while assessing income from two sources as aforesaid. Claims Tribunal has also committed an error in not considering future prospects of deceased and straightaway considering Rs. 10,000/- as annual income being datum figure and multiplier of 15, and therefore, according to my opinion, considering impugned award as a whole, Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in not properly calculating amount of compensation and also committed an error in not awarding any amount for shock, pains and suffering and obsequial ceremony and expenses for treatment and medicines. Claims Tribunal has also committed an error in not considering future prospects. These are the heads on which Claims Tribunal has not applied mind properly. Therefore, total compensation of Rs. Claims Tribunal has also committed an error in not considering future prospects. These are the heads on which Claims Tribunal has not applied mind properly. Therefore, total compensation of Rs. 1,21,670/- awarded by Claims Tribunal is very much on its lower side, and therefore, it is according to my opinion compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal is unjust and unreasonable as it is on lower side, therefore, compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal is required to be enhanced by this court as basically Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in calculating and assessing compensation on different heads, and therefore, amount awarded by Claims Tribunal on different heads cannot be considered to be just, reasonable and proper. Therefore, considering datum figure of annual income of Rs. 10,000/- fixed by Claims Tribunal as against total income received by deceased from two partnership firms as per assessment order for the year 1973 and 1974 and applying multiplier of 15 considering age of deceased and also considering future prospects of deceased' aged about 32 years and also considering fact that Claims Tribunal has awarded no compensation for pains, shock and suffering, obsequial ceremony, treatment and expenses for medicines etc. as discussed above, according to my opinion, it would be just and proper if award of compensation made by Claims Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 1,00,000/-, then, total compensation would come to Rs. 2,21,670 [Rs. 1,21,670 awarded by Claims Tribunal + Rs. 1,00,000 enhanced in this appeal], that would met ends of justice considering award as a whole and same would be, according to my opinion, a just, reasonable and proper compensation. Therefore, this appeal is required to be allowed as prayed for. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed as prayed for. A ward made by Claims Tribunal (Aux!.) at Baroda in M.A.C.P. No. 252 of 1979 dated 10-3-1981 is further enhanced by Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay said enhanced amount of compensation to appellants with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum from date of application till date of realization. Respondents are directed to pay said enhanced amount of compensation to appellants original-claimants with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum from date of application till date of realization within three months from date of receipt of copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. (HSS) Appeal allowed.