JUDGMENT : Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of an Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 2nd January 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Aux.], Rajkot, in M.A.C.P. No. 542 of 2004 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.5,38,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realisation with a direction that the Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount along with the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The grievance of the claimants was that the deceased, Batukbhai Bavjibhai Magatpara, was a pillion rider on Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing registration No. GJ.3H.4530 which was driven by the brother of the deceased, Govindbhai Bavjibhai. According to the claimants, when they reached on Atkot Jasadan Road, the offending Tractor No. GJ.3K.9425 came in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road and collided with the motor cycle, as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and later on, succumbed to the injuries. 2.1 According to the claimants, the deceased was doing business of clothes in wholesale in the name and style of Shri Hari Kapad Store at Atkot and used to earn Rs.4800/- per month. It is the further the case of the claimants that the deceased was the only bread earner in the entire family of the claimants. 3. The National Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle, entered appearance and filed Written Statement, thereby denying the allegations made in the claim-petition. It was contended that drivers of both the vehicles were not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and both the insured, by permitting such unauthorized drivers to drive the vehicles, have committed breach of the terms of the respective policy, and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. 4. The learned Tribunal below, on consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the motor cycle lodged the FIR against the driver of the Tractor, and the Insurance Company of both the motor cycle and the tractor being the same, it was the driver of the tractor who was solely negligent according to the version of the scooter driver. 5. 5. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it appears that by the production of the documentary evidence, i.e. copy of purchase bills Exh. 39 and 52, it has been proved that the total amount of purchase of garments by the deceased was to the tune of Rs.7.61,000/-. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the assertion of the claimants that the deceased had monthly income of Rs.4800/- cannot be said to be unreasonable. It further appears that a suggestion was given on behalf of the Insurance Company to the wife of the deceased that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1800/-, which was denied by the widow of the deceased. Even thereafter, the Tribunal was of the view that the income of the victim should be treated to be Rs.3000/- at the time of the incident. Thereafter, he added 50% of that income and made deduction of ?th as personal expenses as there were 7 members in the family of the deceased who were dependents. After deduction of such ?th, the Tribunal below applied a multiplier of 12 and arrived at the figure of Rs.4,03,200/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards conventional amount and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, and thus, awarded a total amount of Rs.5,38,200/-. 6. Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before this Court that the grant of conventional amount for loss of estate, loss of consortium, expectation of life etc. cannot be Rs.1,25,000/- and the said amount should be reduced to Rs.25,000/- as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Mr. Mehta further contended that although claimants have claimed only Rs.5,00,000/- in the claim petition, there was no justification in granting compensation in excess of that amount. 7. Mr. Sheth, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants, have, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Mehta and has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Ranbir Singh, reported in 2013 (O) GLHEL-SC 54231 where the Supreme Court held that "it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium" for an accident dated 5th October 2007. Mr. Mehta and has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh v. Ranbir Singh, reported in 2013 (O) GLHEL-SC 54231 where the Supreme Court held that "it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium" for an accident dated 5th October 2007. Mr. Sheth also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu Estate Transport Corpn., reported in 2014(5) SCALE 479 wherein the Supreme Court awarded Rs.1, 00,000/- each towards loss of consortium and towards loss of love and affection in a case where the accident occurred in the year 1994. 8. In the case of Anjani Singh and Others v. Salauddin reported in 2014(6) SCALE 55 , the Supreme Court awarded Rs.1 lakh as loss of consortium for the death arising out of an accident of 17th September 1997. 9. Mr. Mehta, however, in reply relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra reported in (2013) 10 SCC 695 in support of his contention that the Supreme Court has not followed the earlier decision in the case of Rajesh v. Ranbir Singh [supra]. In the above case the accident occurred on 8th November 2004. 9.1 Mr. Mehta also relied upon a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18-19th September 2013 in First Appeal No. 481 of 2001 where the Division Bench of this Court has awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses in a case where the date of accident is 18th November 1995. Mr. Mehta, therefore, prays for reduction of the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of conventional amounts. 10. Therefore, the first question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. 11. As stated earlier, in this case, the driver of the motor cycle himself lodged the complaint and the driver of the offending tractor did not come forward to depose for the purpose of showing that there was no fault on his part in causing the accident. 11. As stated earlier, in this case, the driver of the motor cycle himself lodged the complaint and the driver of the offending tractor did not come forward to depose for the purpose of showing that there was no fault on his part in causing the accident. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that it was the sole negligence on the part of the part of the driver of the tractor which caused the accident. I find no reason to interfere with the said findings recorded by the Tribunal. 12. As regards the income of the victim, I find that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the victim to be only Rs.3500/- in spite of the fact that the Tribunal believed the evidence that the deceased was doing cloth business and purchased garments worth more than Rs.7 lakh. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar reported in 2008(12) SCC 165 , where the accident occurred on 12th April, 2004, even an unskilled labour earns Rs.3000/- per month. In the case before us the accident occurred on December 20, 2003. Such being the positions, when the victim-businessman purchased the garments of the value of more than Rs.7 lakh for the purpose of his business, it is expected that the monthly income of the deceased cannot be less than Rs.4800/-. There was no justification for treating the income at Rs.3500/- per month. Such being the position, I hold the income of the deceased to be Rs.4800/- per month. 13. It appears from the claim petition that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family consisting of in all six members. Therefore, on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma [supra], I propose to deduct ?th from the monthly income of the deceased, and thus, the net monthly loss of dependency would be Rs.4800 - Rs.960 = Rs.3840/-. 14. As regards the age of the victim, it appears that according to the Election Identity Card, the victim was aged 46 years at the time of the accident, However, the Tribunal below treated it to be 50 simply on the ground that the widow of the deceased appears to be 47 years and the PM report also indicates the age to be 50. I find that the aforesaid finding is also a perverse finding. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I propose to treat the age of the victim to be 46 years as reflected from the election identity card as the Insurance Company, in spite of taking leave under Section 170 of the Act, did not adduce any evidence showing that the age reflected in the Election Identity Card was wrong. Therefore, on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma [supra] providing multiplier of 13 for age group 46 to 50 years, I propose to award multiplier of 13. Thus, considering the monthly dependency loss at Rs.3840/-, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5, 99,040/- towards dependency loss of the claimants. [Rs.3840 X 12 X 13 = Rs.5, 99,040]. 14.1 Over and above, in my opinion, having regard to the recent trend of decisions of the Supreme court from the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir and others (supra), I am of the view that a sum of Rs.1 lakh is payable to the wife as a loss of consortium for the accident which occurred in December 2003 if I follow Anjani Singh (supra) and Kalpanaraj and others (supra) where the accident occurred in the year 1997 and 1994 respectively and the Supreme Court awarded Rs.1 lakh as loss of consortium. 14.2 If I add Rs.1 lakh as compensation payable to the widow in addition to Rs.5,99,040/-, the total amount will arrive at a figure of Rs.6,99,040/- whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,38,200 on a claim application valued at Rs.5 lakh. 15. Since the claimants have neither filed any separate appeal or even a cross-objection against the award impugned, there is no scope of enhancing the award in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company. (See Oriental Insurance Company v. R. Swaminathan and others, reported in 2006 ACJ 1398) 16. I, however, find no substance in the contention of Mr. Mehta that the amount of compensation cannot exceed Rs.5 lakh, the claimed amount. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh reported in AIR 2004 SC 674 are relevant and quoted below: "16. I, however, find no substance in the contention of Mr. Mehta that the amount of compensation cannot exceed Rs.5 lakh, the claimed amount. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh reported in AIR 2004 SC 674 are relevant and quoted below: "16. From the aforesaid observations it cannot be held that there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass such award. In cases where there is no evidence on record, the Court may permit such amendment and allow to raise additional issue and give an opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence." 16.1 Thus, in the case before us, even on the basis of evidence on record, the claimants are entitled to the sum awarded by the Tribunal which is in excess of the amount claimed. 17. I thus find no reason to disturb the ultimate award impugned in this appeal although I do not agree with the reasons assigned. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.