Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 02/04/2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short) in Claim Petition No. 65/2007. The appellants were the applicants in the said Claim Petition whereas the respondents were the respondents therein. Respondents no. 8(a) to 8(c) are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 8. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the sad Claim Petition. 3. The applicants had filed the said Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M. V. Act, for short) for compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/-on account of death of Shri Sagun Ghadi, the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of applicants no. 2 to 5, in a Motor Vehicular Accident. 4. Case of the applicants, in short, was as under: On 23/10/2006, the deceased, husband of the applicant no. 1 and father of the applicants no. 2 to 5, was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No. GA-02/Q-2672 driven by his son Shri Anil Ghadi, the applicant no. 2. They had started from their residence at Shigao. The deceased was to alight at Kodli-Tisk and the applicant no. 2 was to proceed further to go to M.R.F. factory, Usgao. At about 15.30 hours, at a place known as Vagona-Kirlapal, on the road between Dabal to Sanvordem, the truck bearing registration no. GA-02/T-6672 driven rashly and negligently and at a fast speed, dashed against the oncoming tipper truck bearing registration no. GA-02/T-6334 which was also driven rashly and negligently and at a fast speed and thereafter, the truck no. GA-02/T-6672 dashed against the motorcycle on which the deceased was the pillion rider. As a result of the said dash, the deceased and the applicant no. 2 fell down. The deceased died due to injuries sustained in the said accident and the applicant no. 2 sustained grievous injuries. 5. The applicants claimed that the deceased was 57 years old and was an agriculturist and was also working as an agricultural labourer and earning around Rs. 4,500/-per month. They stated that the deceased was healthy and had good physique and had a spinster daughter i.e. applicant no. 5, who was of marriageable age. It was alleged that the deceased was spending his income for family and the applicants were depending on his income. 4,500/-per month. They stated that the deceased was healthy and had good physique and had a spinster daughter i.e. applicant no. 5, who was of marriageable age. It was alleged that the deceased was spending his income for family and the applicants were depending on his income. Towards the loss of dependency, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was claimed; towards loss of love, affection and company of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 25,000/-was claimed; and towards financial expenses and religious rites, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was claimed. 6. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were respectively the driver and owner of the truck bearing no. GA-02/T-6672 which vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3. The respondents no. 4 and 5 were respectively the driver and owner of the truck bearing registration no. GA-02/T-6334 which was insured with respondent no. 6. Respondents no. 7 and 9 are the married daughters of the deceased and respondents no. 8 and 10 are their respective husbands. 7. The respondent no. 3, in its written statement, denied the case of the applicants and alleged that the applicant no. 2 was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner without paying proper attention to the traffic as a result of which the accident occurred. 8. The respondents no. 4, 5 and 6, in their written statements, denied the case of the applicants and alleged that exorbitant compensation has been claimed. 9. Issues were framed as per rival contentions of the parties. The applicants examined the applicant no. 1 Smt. Chandravati Ghadi as AW1, the applicant no. 2 Shri Anil Ghadi as AW2, Shri Satyawan Gaonkar as AW3 and Shri Raghu Gaonkar as AW4. The respondent no. 4 Shri Michel Fernandes examined himself as RW1. 10. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving only of the truck no. GA-02/T-6672, resulting into death of the deceased. The learned M.A.C.T. further held that the respondents no. 2 and 3, jointly and/or severally, are liable to pay to the applicants a sum of Rs. 2,01,500/- and since the applicants had already received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability, the same was deducted and the applicants were held to be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 2 and 3, jointly and/or severally, are liable to pay to the applicants a sum of Rs. 2,01,500/- and since the applicants had already received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability, the same was deducted and the applicants were held to be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,51,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of full payment. 11. The respondents no. 2 and 3 have not challenged the Judgment and Award dated 2/04/2008. The respondent no. 3 deposited the entire awarded amount before the learned M.A.T.C. in satisfaction of the said Award. The applicants have already withdrawn the said amount. Present appeal is filed by the applicants challenging the quantum of compensation and praying for further amount of compensation of Rs. 2,89,500/- with interest on the total compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/-, at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till payment. 12. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out that the learned M.A.T.C. held that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 3,000/- saying that the same was notional income. He submitted that the deceased was working as labourer and hence the notional income of an earning person ought to have been taken as Rs. 4,500/- or more and hence the income of the deceased should be taken as at least Rs. 4,500/-. He further urged that 15% increase ought to have been granted to the said income of Rs. 4,500/- towards future prospects. He pointed out that the M.A.T.C. had taken age of the deceased as 57 years at the time of accident but had wrongly applied the multiplier of 8, when in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of “Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr”, reported in 2009 (4) ALL MR 429, the multiplier ought to have been 9. He further urged that the claimants were altogether 5 in number who were all dependent on the income of the deceased and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd done by the M.A.C.T. He also relied upon the case of “Santoshi Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited”, reported in [ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ]. National Insurance Company Limited”, reported in [ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ]. Relying upon the case of “Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others” , reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, and “Savita Vs. Bindar Singh and Others ”, reported in [ (2014) 4 SCC 505 ], learned Counsel urged that the compensation towards loss of consortium ought to have been Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of a paltry sum of Rs. 5,000/- granted by the learned M.A.C.T. He also contended that towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- should be awarded instead of Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Award be substantially modified by enhancing the compensation as per the entitlement of the applicants. 13. Mr Netravalkar, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3, submitted that the applicants had failed to prove that the deceased was doing any work and had any fixed income and hence notional income was rightly considered which, however, was on higher side, and ought to have been Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He further submitted that the applicants did not produce any documentary evidence regarding the age of the deceased who as per the Memorandum of Autopsy was 67 years old. Learned Counsel thus urged that though the multiplier of 8 was used, instead of 9, however, considering the fact that the age of the deceased was taken as only 57 years and notional income was taken as Rs. 36,000/-per annum, compensation arrived at was much on higher side. He pointed out that the applicants no. 2, 3 and 4 were major and in service and hence were not dependent on the income of the deceased and therefore the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses was rightly made. Learned Counsel urged that since the deceased was not doing any work, the question of granting 30% addition to the income of the deceased did not arise. He therefore submitted that no interference is called for with the impugned Judgment and Award. 14. Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 6, submitted that the respondent no 6 has not been held to be responsible to compensate the applicant, for which none of the parties has made any grievance. 15. I have perused the original record and proceedings of Claim Petition No. 66/2007 and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 16. 6, submitted that the respondent no 6 has not been held to be responsible to compensate the applicant, for which none of the parties has made any grievance. 15. I have perused the original record and proceedings of Claim Petition No. 66/2007 and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 16. There is no dispute that the alleged accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by respondent no. 1 of the truck bearing registration No. GA-02/T-6672. There is also no dispute that the said truck was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured at the relevant time with respondent no. 3. Thus the respondents no. 2 and 3 have been rightly held to be jointly and/or severally liable to pay the compensation to the applicants. 17. The point for determination is whether the compensation awarded is just and unreasonable or is required to be enhanced. 18. In the Claim Petition, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was mentioned as 57 years. No doubt, in the Memorandum of Autopsy, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 67 years. The election card of the applicant no. 1, which is at Exhibit 35, shows that her age as on 01.01.1993 was 40 years. Thus, the wife of the deceased i.e. the applicant no. 1 was about 53 years old on the date of the accident. The birth certificate of the applicant no. 2, which is part of Exhibit 34-colly, shows that he was born on 12.02.1978 and thus was about 28 years old at the time of accident. He is the eldest son of the deceased and applicant no. 1. The applicant no. 3 was born on 21.01.1981 and thus was about 25 years old; the applicant no. 4 was born on 09.01.1983 and thus was about 23 years old and lastly the applicant no. 5 was born on 06.07.1985 and thus was about 21 years old at the time of the accident. Considering the ages of the applicants, I am of the view that the learned M.A.C.T. rightly held that the age of the deceased was about 57 years at the time of accident as claimed by the applicants. 19. In the Claim Petition, the applicants pleaded that the deceased had good physique and sound health and was working as an agricultural labourer and was earning around Rs. 4,500/-per month. 19. In the Claim Petition, the applicants pleaded that the deceased had good physique and sound health and was working as an agricultural labourer and was earning around Rs. 4,500/-per month. Similarly, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-evidence, AW1, the applicant no. 1 stated that the deceased was an agriculturist as also an agricultural labourer and was earning Rs. 4,500/-per month out of the employment in agriculture. She added that in their locality, an agricultural labourer used to earn around Rs. 170 per day. What was pertinent to note was that AW2, the applicant no. 2, in spite of being the eldest son of the deceased, nowhere stated that his deceased father used to do any agricultural work or that he was an agriculturist. AW2 did not state that the deceased was earning anything. No documentary evidence of any agricultural properties owned or possessed by the deceased were produced. Therefore, it was not proved that the deceased was either an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer. In such circumstances, in my view, the learned M.A.C.T. rightly held that it will not be unreasonable if the notional income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Even in the recent case of “Savita” (supra), the notional income of the deceased which was taken as Rs. 3,000/- by the Tribunal was not disturbed by the Hon'ble, Supreme Court. 20. Thus the starting point for calculating the compensation was annual income of the deceased which was Rs. 36,000/-. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Sarla Verma” (supra), where the deceased was self-employed or was on fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional circumstances. In the case of “Rajesh and others” (supra), however, the Apex Court observed that in the case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there in no age of superannuation, it will be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 and 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. In the present case, it was neither proved that the deceased was self-employed nor it was proved that he had fixed wages, due to which notional income was taken into account. Therefore, addition in income due to future prospects of advancement in life and career cannot be made in the present case. The learned M.A.C.T. has made a deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and according to the Counsel for the applicant the said deduction ought to have been 1/4th. In terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Sarla Verma” (supra), where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 2 to 3; one fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceeds six. In the present case, though the applicants were five in number, however, the applicants no. 2 to 4 were admittedly major at the time of accident and were all in service. The applicants no. 2 to 4 were not dependant on the income of the deceased. The only dependant family members were the applicants no. 1 and 5. They being two in number, the deduction of 1/3rd made by the learned M.A.C.T. was proper. By deducting 1/3rd from the actual income of Rs. 36,000/-, the multiplicand becomes 24,000/-. As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sarla Verma” (supra), the multiplier to be used for the age group of 56 to 60 years is 9. Therefore the multiplier of 8 used by the learned M.A.C.T. will have to be changed to 9. By using the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency becomes Rs. 2,16,000/-. Towards loss of consortium, the learned M.A.C.T. has awarded Rs. 5,000/- only to the applicant no. 1. In the case of “Sarla Verma” (supra), the deceased was 38 years old working as a scientist in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the applicant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the widow will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the applicant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the widow will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium. In the case of “Santoshi Devi” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 5,000/- for transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expense and Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of loss of consortium. In the case of “Rajesh and Others” (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, after referring to the decisions in “Sarla Verma “case and “Santoshi Devi“ case (supra), and minutely considering the concept of loss of consortium, held that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also took judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'funeral expenses'. The Apex Court observed that the 'price index' has gone up in that regard also and the head 'funeral expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family, which are all quite expensive. The Apex Court, therefore held that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'funeral expenses' in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. In the recent case of “Savita” (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to its decision in the case of “Rajesh and Others “ (supra), held that the compensation under the head of 'loss of consortium' should be Rs. 1,00,000/- and towards the head of 'funeral expenses' Rs. 25,000/-. In the circumstances above, I hold that the applicant no. 1 is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium'; the applicants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of 'funeral expenses'; and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of estate. The total compensation comes to Rs. 3,46,000/- (Rs. 2,16,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-). 1 is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium'; the applicants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of 'funeral expenses'; and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss of estate. The total compensation comes to Rs. 3,46,000/- (Rs. 2,16,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-). Since the applicants have already received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the M. V. Act, by deducting the same, the applicants are entitled to receive balance compensation of Rs. 2,96,000/-. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The applicants shall be entitled to balance compensation of Rs. 2,96,000/-. The respondents no. 2 and 3 shall jointly and/or severally pay the said amount to the applicants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of full payment and also the costs of the petition. Out of the total amount, the applicant no. 1 shall be exclusively entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-along with accrued interest thereon. The impugned Judgment and award stands modified to the extent. 22. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.