Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1 This order shall disposed of FAO No.1549 of 2009 titled M/s Khalpal Solavex Pvt. Ltd. Jalalabad and another v. Preet Kaur and others and FAO No.4622 of 2009 titled Preet Kaur arid another v. M/s Khatpal Solavex Pvt. Ltd. Jalalabad and others, as common question of law and facts are involved. 2 For brevity sake, facts are being taken from FAO No.1549 of 2009. 3 This appeal, by the owner of the offending vehicle, is directed against the award dated 9.3.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur, vide which the application moved by the respondent/claimants under Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed. 4 The claimants i.e. widow and son of the deceased sought compensation, for the death of Jaswant Singh S/o Surain Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The deceased was driving scooter bearing registration No.PB-61-5567 and was going from Jalalabad to village Kathgarh. When he was going to cross seepage drain of village Dhab Gharial, one tractor trolley make Swaraj 735 bearing registration No.PB-61-8335, which was being driven by Pritam Singh respondent No.3, in a negligent manner, hit the scooter, as a result of which the deceased suffered injuries and died at spot. FIR No. 244 dated 25.9.2006 under Sections 279, 427, 304-A IPC was registered against the driver. The deceased was said to be 50 years of age and managing his agricultural land, owned and possessed by him. His monthly income was said to be Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per month. The case set up by the claimants was, that a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) was being contributed by him to the family. 5 The petition was contested. Besides taking preliminary objections, on merit the factum of accident was denied. 6 On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether Jaswant Singh deceased died in motor vehicle accident caused by respondent No.3 while driving tractor No. PB-61-8335 in a rash and negligent manner on 25.9.2006 at about 8 P.M. in the area of semnala of Dhab Gharial, Tehsil Jalalabad? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so how much and from which of the tractor? OPP 3. Whether the claimants are guilty of concealment of material facts from this court? OPR 4. OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so how much and from which of the tractor? OPP 3. Whether the claimants are guilty of concealment of material facts from this court? OPR 4. Whether the claimants are estopped from filing the present petition by their own act and conduct? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 6. Relief." 7 On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal held that Jaswant Singh died in motor vehicular accident caused by respondent No.3, while driving tractor No. PB-61- 8335 in a rash and negligent manner on 25.9.2006. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- (Rupees five lac and thirty thousand only). In addition, the claimants were held entitled to a sum of 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) on account of funeral ceremony. The compensation granted was assessed as Rs.5,30,000/- (Rupees five lac and thirty thousand only). 8 The claimants have also filed FAO No. 4622 of 2009, claiming for enhancement of compensation, whereas the appellants have challenged the compensation on the plea that the compensation awarded is outcome of mistake in calculation. 9 The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was, that the learned Tribunal, by taking into consideration, the fact that the agricultural land, which was owned by the deceased was to be inherited by the claimants on his death, assessed the income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only), and the dependency of the claimants was assessed at 2/3rd of the income. 10 The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the multiplier applied was 11. Therefore, the total compensation payable as per the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, would come only to Rs.3,20,780/- (Rupees three lac twenty thousand seven hundred and eighty only) and in addition a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) if added towards funeral expenses the total compensation could not exceed Rs.3,22,780/- (Rupees three lac twenty two thousand seven hundred and eighty only). 11 The prayer made, therefore, is that the compensation be reduced to Rs.3,22,780/- (Rupees three lac twenty two thousand seven hundred and eighty only), by correcting the error in calculation. 11 The prayer made, therefore, is that the compensation be reduced to Rs.3,22,780/- (Rupees three lac twenty two thousand seven hundred and eighty only), by correcting the error in calculation. 12 The appeal is opposed by the learned counsel for the claimant/respondents No.l and 2, on the plea that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only), whereas the income of the deceased was much higher. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that keeping in view the age of the deceased the multiplier to be applied should, have been 13 and not 11, as held by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimants also contended that if the correct multiplier and correct income is applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive rather it needs to be enhanced further, as claimed in FAO No. 4622 of 2009. 13 On consideration, I find that the assessment of income of agriculturist, keeping in view the fact that the agricultural land was inherited by the claimants, cannot, be said to be on the lower side. The assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and the dependency as assessed by the learned Tribunal is affirmed. 14 The learned counsel for the respondent/claimants is right, in contending that the multiplier should be 13, keeping in view the age of the deceased. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimants is also right in contending that grant of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for funeral expenses is on the lower side. The claimants should have been awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards funeral expenses. In additionthe claimants were also entitled to compensation for loss of consortium and estate. If this is allowed, another sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) is required to be added to the compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal, the total compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs.4,04,740/- (Rupees four lac four thousand seven hundred and forty only), which can be rounded of to Rs.4,05,000/- (Rupees four lac five thousand only). "Ordered accordingly." 15 FAO No.1549 of 2009 is, therefore, partly allowed, the compensation awarded to the claimants is reduced to Rs.4,05,000/- (Rupees four lac five thousand only). "Ordered accordingly." 15 FAO No.1549 of 2009 is, therefore, partly allowed, the compensation awarded to the claimants is reduced to Rs.4,05,000/- (Rupees four lac five thousand only). 16 The learned counsel for the appellants, states that a sum of Rs.3,54,000/- (Rupees three lac and fifty four thousand only) already stands deposited, with the learned Executing Court, which the claimants can withdraw from the Tribunal. 17 Office is directed to send the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) deposited by the appellants while filing this appeal, to the learned Executing Court for payment to the claimants. The appellants are further directed to deposit the balance amount as assessed within a period of one month from today with the learned Executing Court. In case of failure to deposit within one month, claimants shall be entitled, to interest on the remaining compensation @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition till payment. 18 FAO No.1549 of 2009 titled M/s Khatpal Solavex Pvt. Ltd. Jalalabad and another V. Preet Kaur and others is partly allowed, whereas FAO No.4622 of 2009 titled Preet Kaur and another v. M/s Khatpal Solavex Pvt. Ltd. Jalalabad and others, is dismissed. No costs. Order accordingly.