JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29/11/2011 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 52 of 2000 whereby, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 04/08/1999 when deceased Maheshgar Gunsai was going in his Ambassador car bearing registration No. MH01A5093 with his son and the father on National Highway No. 15, one truck bearing registration No. HR51GA1220 came from the opposite direction and dashed with the car. Resultantly, the deceased sustained serious injuries and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries. Such accident gave rise to claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 52 of 2000 for compensation of Rs.25 lakhs before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the proceedings, passed the above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances, present appeal before this Court. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company was on the aspect of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It was submitted that, on behalf of the claimants, no evidence was led supporting the statement that the deceased was having income of Rs.12,000/- per month at the time of accident. The Tribunal, on notional basis without there being any material, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum, which was erroneous. In the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, the notional income, in any case, could not have exceeded the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others v. Mohammad Tabbar and Another, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1858 for contending that the income could be considered at Rs.3,000/- per month. 3.1 Whereas, Mr. Vora, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants, supported the award passed by the Tribunal and he submitted that the compensation has been properly awarded and no interference may be made by this Court. 4. In our view, the contention raised for assessment of the income by the Tribunal deserves consideration. 3.1 Whereas, Mr. Vora, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants, supported the award passed by the Tribunal and he submitted that the compensation has been properly awarded and no interference may be made by this Court. 4. In our view, the contention raised for assessment of the income by the Tribunal deserves consideration. It is an admitted position that no evidence was produced for supporting the say of the wife of the deceased who filed affidavit on behalf of the claimants that her husband was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In absence of any evidence whatsoever, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and Others (supra), for the death of a person in the accident on 12/04/2004, the notional income of Rs.100/- per day is considered and per month, Rs.3,000/has been considered as appropriate income. 4.1 In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, we find that if there was no evidence whatsoever produced to show the actual income of the deceased, the Tribunal could have reasonably assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and not Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed error to that extent. 5. Another relevant aspect is that the Tribunal has not considered any prospective income even if the income of the deceased was to be considered at Rs.5,000/- per month or Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , considering the age of the deceased and also considering the fact that there was no organised source of earning, 50% may not be added for considering the prospective income but it can at least be considered to the extent of 30%. Accordingly, if 30% is added, it would be Rs.3,900/- per month and per annum, it would be Rs.46,800/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, as the number of claimants were exceeding 04, ¼th of the amount i.e. Rs.11,700/- will be required to be deducted and the left out amount would be Rs.35,100/-. Accordingly, if 30% is added, it would be Rs.3,900/- per month and per annum, it would be Rs.46,800/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, as the number of claimants were exceeding 04, ¼th of the amount i.e. Rs.11,700/- will be required to be deducted and the left out amount would be Rs.35,100/-. The deceased was aged 28 years and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 which is in accordance with the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Accordingly, the total amount would be Rs.5,96,700/- towards economic loss to the claimants. 5.1 It appears that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and conventional damages. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that it would be appropriate to award Rs.50,000/under the joint heads of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and conventional damages. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards the funeral expenses to which we are not inclined to interfere with. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.6,51,700/- and not Rs.8,10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it is observed and held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.6,51,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application until the amount is paid or deposited and if deposited, with accrued interest thereon. The judgment and award of the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. 6.1 The Tribunal shall recalculate the amount and refund, if any, shall be made available to the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 6.2 The Registry to return the R&P to the concerned Tribunal forthwith following due procedure for the same. Order accordingly.