JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. The appellants, herein, are the original-claimants, who have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award of the learned MACT (Auxi.), Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (for short, the Tribunal), rendered in MACP No. 1024 of 2006, whereby, the claim petition of the appellants was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 23.07.2006, while the husband of appellant No.1 and the father of appellants Nos. 2 and 3, herein, namely Keshubhai was proceeding on a scooter as a pillion rider, which was being driven by respondent No.4 and insured by respondent No.5, herein, same met with an accident with a motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-9-R-7660, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3, herein. On account of the aforesaid accident, Keshubhai sustained severe injuries and later on he succumbed to the same. Hence, the present appellants preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Ms. Bhatt, learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective and erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. She submitted that the annual income of the deceased arrived at by the Tribunal is too meagre. She, further, submitted that the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium etc. are also on lower side. She, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 4. As against this Mr. Mazmudar, learned Advocate for respondent No.3, submitted that the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, and hence, same deserves no interference at the hands of this Court. 5. Heard learned Advocate for the appellants, Ms. Bhatt, and learned Advocate for Respondent No.3, Mr. Mazmudar. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, 5. 6. So far as the aspect of negligence is concerned, same is not agitated by any of the parties, and hence, same is not gone into by this Court and I concur with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that respondent No.1, herein, was solely responsible for the alleged accident. 7. 1, 2 and 4, 5. 6. So far as the aspect of negligence is concerned, same is not agitated by any of the parties, and hence, same is not gone into by this Court and I concur with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that respondent No.1, herein, was solely responsible for the alleged accident. 7. Now, the next aspect, which comes up for the consideration of this Court, is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or not. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and award it appears that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their case that deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. However, in support of their case as above, they placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Babubhai Dipubhai Chauhan & Ors.", GLH 2006(2) CACC 449, wherein, this Court held that taking into consideration the services rendered by a housewife to her family, her income can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, it appears that the learned Tribunal casually brushed aside the judgment of this Court by holding that, since, the deceased was a male, the aforesaid judgment would not apply to the facts of the case on hand and assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has recorded no reasons as to on what basis it assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which would come to around Rs.1250/- per month. In other words, the Tribunal assessed the income of a male, who was the only breadwinner of his family, at the rate, which is nearly half the income of a housewife assessed by this Court in the aforesaid decision. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the submission made by Ms. Bhatt that the Tribunal committed a grave error while assessing the income of the deceased and even the ground on which the Tribunal did not rely on the decision of this Court is also not palpable. In the case of "Sarla Verma And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Anr.", (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as to what would be the just and proper compensation. Following the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of "New India Assurance Co. In the case of "Sarla Verma And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Anr.", (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as to what would be the just and proper compensation. Following the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Babubhai Dipubhai Chauhan & Ors." (AIR 2006 (NOC) 1278) (Guj.)(Supra) that even the income of a housewife should not be assessed at less than Rs.3,000/- per month, if, the income of the deceased, who was the only earning member of the family, is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month, then, the same would be just and proper. The deceased was not having any permanent job and was aged about 45 years, at the time of accident, and hence, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sarla Verma" (Supra), if, 30 per cent rise is given in the income of the deceased, then, it would be just and proper. Hence, the gross prospective income would come to [( Rs.4000/30%)= Rs.1,200/, ( Rs.4000 + Rs.1200)]= Rs.5,200/- per month. The deceased is survived by his wife and two children, and therefore, 1/3 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses from the aforesaid amount. Thus, the actual prospective loss of income per month would come to Rs.(5200 ?)= Rs.1733.33/-, rounding it off to Rs.1750/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15, which looking to the age of the deceased, i.e. 45 years, appears to be just and proper. Thus, the total prospective loss of income would come to ( Rs.1750 x 12)= Rs.21,000/- per annum and the total future loss of income would come to ( Rs.21,000 x 15)= Rs.3,15,000/-. The Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under the aforesaid head. The appellants, hence, will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.(3,15,000 -1,50,000)= Rs.1,65,000/- under the head of loss of future income. 8. So far as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of loss of enjoyment of life, funeral charges, loss of consortium, transportation etc. are concerned, same appears to be just and proper in the facts of the case on hand and the same requires no interference at the hands of this Court. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Ordered accordingly. Direct service is permitted. Appeal allowed.