JUDGMENT Jayant M. Patel, J. 1. As both the appeals arise from the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are being considered simultaneously. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 1371 of 1993 and MACP No. 1372 of 1993, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,52,800/- and Rs. 74,000/- respectively with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case appears to be that on 22.5.1993, the deceased Amrutbhai Kalidas and injured Mangalbhai Somabhai Patel had gone to Vasad and when they reached Hanumanji Temple while returning as pedestrians, one truck bearing Registration No. GRT-6305 dashed with the deceased and the injured and as a result thereof, the deceased Amrutbhai sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries, whereas Patel Mangalbhai Somabhai sustained injuries and the left leg was required to be amputated. Two claim petitions were filed, one was preferred by the dependent family members of the deceased Amrutbhai being MACP No. 1371 of 1993 for the compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- and another was filed by the Patel Mangalbhai Somabhai being MACP No. 1372 of 1993 for the compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the proceedings, passed the above referred judgment and award. Under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 3. We may record that the original claimants of MACP No. 1371 of 1993 have preferred appeal being First Appeal No. 4456 of 2006, whereas the original claimants of MACP No. 1372 of 1993 have preferred appeal being First Appeal No. 4611 of 2006 and they have restricted their claims for additional compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 4. We have heard Mr. MTM Hakim, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. So far as the other respondents are concerned, they have been served, but nobody appears on their behalf. 5. Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals contended that the compensations awarded by the Tribunal in both the cases are much on the lower side and the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the deceased, the prospective income and proper deduction towards personal expenses are also not made and, therefore, it was prayed that this Court may enhance the amount of compensation. 6. Whereas, Mr. 6. Whereas, Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has properly assessed the income and has awarded compensation and no enhancement may be ordered by this Court. 7. The examination of the facts of First Appeal No. 4456 of 2006 shows that the Tribunal has assessed the income for the share of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter, the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs. 1,500/- per month and Rs. 500/- towards animal husbandry work and thereafter has assessed the income at Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the prospective income of the deceased. It is true that the deceased was doing the agricultural work, but from the evidence of the bills produced for the sale of the products, it can be said that there was evidence on record for the income of the deceased from agriculture. When any agriculturist engages himself in the agricultural activities, it can be said that the economic loss is to be assessed on the basis of supervision, but rise in the wages in the field of agriculture cannot be ignored. When the income is in unorganized sector, though regular in nature, the prospective income can be assessed at the rate of 30%. Accordingly, the prospective income should have been considered by the Tribunal. If the prospective income is considered at the rate of 30%, the total economic loss would be Rs. 2,600/- per month. 8. The Tribunal has also committed error in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses, though number of claimants were more than three. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)] when the number of claimants are exceeding three, but less than six, the deduction towards personal expenses would be Vith. Hence, out of the amount of Rs. 2,600/-, deduction towards personal expenses would come to Rs. 650/- and net amount towards dependency benefits would come to Rs. 1,950/- per month and annually it would be Rs. 23,400/-. If the multiplier of 15 is applied, such would come to Rs. 3,51,000/- as against the amount of Rs. 2,40,300/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency benefit. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 650/- and net amount towards dependency benefits would come to Rs. 1,950/- per month and annually it would be Rs. 23,400/-. If the multiplier of 15 is applied, such would come to Rs. 3,51,000/- as against the amount of Rs. 2,40,300/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency benefit. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss to estate and love and affection, which we find it to be on the lower side. Considering the facts and more particularly in view of recent trend of awarding compensation towards loss to estate and love and affection, we find that the appropriate amount should have been awarded of Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,500/- towards transportation expenses, which we do not find it proper to interfere. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs. 4,03,500/- (Rs. 3,51,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 2,500/-) as against amount of Rs. 2,52,800/- already awarded by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the additional compensation would be Rs. 1,50,700/-. 9. Under these circumstances, the appellants - original claimants of MACP No. 1371 of 1993 shall be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,50,700/-. 10. In First Appeal No. 4611 of 2006 arising from the MACP No. 1372 of 1993, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded compensation by assessing the income at Rs. 2,500/- per month and thereafter, the Tribunal has not considered the prospective rise in the income. The another aspect is that the Tribunal has assessed the physical disability at 35%, though there was evidence on record that the left leg was amputated and regular activity of the injured claimant was as an agriculturist. 11. In our view, considering the matter in the same line in view of the reasoning recorded by us in the earlier matter, since the injured claimant was also an agriculturist the prospective income was required to be considered because there would be a rise in the wage if it is considered on the supervision basis. If 30% rise is considered towards the prospective income Rs. 750/- would be required to be added and accordingly, the monthly income can be assessed at Rs. 2,350/-. It has come on record that the activity or the work of the injured claimant was as an agriculturist. If one leg is amputated from the knee, it would be practically impossible for any agriculturist to undertake any agricultural activity. 750/- would be required to be added and accordingly, the monthly income can be assessed at Rs. 2,350/-. It has come on record that the activity or the work of the injured claimant was as an agriculturist. If one leg is amputated from the knee, it would be practically impossible for any agriculturist to undertake any agricultural activity. Under these circumstances, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at the rate of 35% is much on a lower side. The medical certificate of the hospital was produced, wherein the disability was certified at 70%. Considering the fact that the injured claimant was doing agricultural work and there was amputation of left leg below the knee, in our view the disability can be considered at the rate of 70%. Accordingly, monthly economic loss can be assessed at Rs. 2,275/- and annually it would come to Rs. 27,300/-. It is true that in normal minor injury, the Court may not consider the multiplier or may consider the multiplier of lesser figure but in the present case one leg has been amputated and economic loss for whole of the life. The age of the injured claimant was 37 years. Therefore, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)] (supra), appropriate multiplier would be 15. Hence, such amount of compensation would come to Rs. 4,09,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which we find that the same is on a lower side and it would be appropriate to award Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The other amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses of Rs. 21,000/-, Rs. 8,000/- towards food and nutritious diet and Rs. 10,000/- towards actual economic loss appears to be appropriate, which we do not find it proper to interfere. Accordingly, the appropriate amount of compensation would come to Rs. 4,09,500/- plus Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs. 21,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- plus Rs. 8,000/-, total Rs. 4,98,500/-, as against Rs. 74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the appellants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 4,24,500/-. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 4,09,500/- plus Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs. 21,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- plus Rs. 8,000/-, total Rs. 4,98,500/-, as against Rs. 74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the appellants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 4,24,500/-. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In our view, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which cannot be said to be unreasonable, which may call for interference by this Court. 13. In view of the above, it is held that the original claimants - appellants of First Appeal No. 4456 of 2006 shall be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,50,700/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application until the amount is deposited or paid to the original claimants. In First Appeal No. 4611 of 2006, the original claimants shall be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 4,24,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application until the amount is deposited or paid to the original claimants. The additional compensation with accrued interest shall be deposited or paid within a period of eight weeks from today. Both the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed