Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, ‘Act of 1988’) is preferred by the appellant-claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount quantified and awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’), by its Award dated 21st of January 1998. 2. By the said Award, the learned Tribunal on adjudication of the claim of the appellants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, assessed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- under different heads and thereafter by apportioning 30% contributory negligence of the deceased has worked out total payable compensation to the appellants as Rs.1,36,500/-. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29th December 1994 when Digvijay Singh accompanied by one lady Smt. Jamna was going on motorbike bearing No.RJ-06-1M-0095 to Bhilwara, truck bearing No. RSS-5611 coming from opposite direction dashed with the motorbike causing grave and serious injuries to Digvijay Singh as well as pillion rider Smt. Jamna, and eventually both of them succumbed to death on the spot. 4. In the claim petition, cause of accident was attributed to rash and negligent driving of Truck by its driver resulting in head on collision. With a view to quantify amount of compensation, appellant-claimants have averred in the claim petition that at the time of death, Digvijay Singh was 28 years old earning his livelihood by doing agricultural work and milk vending and total monthly income of deceased was shown as Rs.3,000/-. On the strength of income of the deceased aforesaid, the appellants laid claim worth Rs.14,57,000/- under different heads. 5. After issuance of notice of claim petition, none appeared for respondents No.1 & 2 despite service and therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. The third respondent Insurance Company contested the claim and submitted its reply. In its return, the third respondent refuted all the averments contained in the claim petition and seriously dispu-ted monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/-. While joining issue with the appellants on rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (truck), the insurer has pleaded that occurrence of accident is directly attributable to the deceased as he was driving motorbike rashly and negligently at the time of accident. While joining issue with the appellants on rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (truck), the insurer has pleaded that occurrence of accident is directly attributable to the deceased as he was driving motorbike rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The insurer has also claimed immunity from its liability to pay compensation on the anvil that at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving licence. One more technical plea is also incorporated in the return by the insurer that the owner of the offending vehicle has not divulged requisite information about the occurrence of accident. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the parties, settled five issues for determination. 7. For proving their case, appellants examined three witnesses; viz., AW1 Gopal Kanwar, AW2 Vikram Singh and AW3 Kana Das, and also placed on record 17 documents which were exhibited. The documentary and oral evidence tendered by the appellants was not countered by the respondents inasmuch as no evidence was tendered by the insurer. 8. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1 has recorded a finding that although the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle truck, but deceased has also attributed for cause of accident. Adverting to Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal on evaluation of evidence has apportioned contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 30% while making it 70% vis-à-vis the offending vehicle. Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation is partially decided in favour of appellants and while considering monthly income of deceased as Rs.1500, the learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 after 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and quantified the compensation for loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. For loss of consortium, the first appellant was awarded Rs.5,000/- and for loss of love and parental affection, the other appellants were awarded Rs.2,000/- each. Finally, the Tribunal worked out the total amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and after making 30% deduction for contributory negligence of deceased, declared the appellants entitled for a sum of Rs.1,36,500/-. For the amount of compensation, all the respondents were held jointly and severally liable. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Finally, the Tribunal worked out the total amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and after making 30% deduction for contributory negligence of deceased, declared the appellants entitled for a sum of Rs.1,36,500/-. For the amount of compensation, all the respondents were held jointly and severally liable. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, has strenuously urged that finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 & 2, to the extent it has found the deceased contributory negligent for occurrence of accident, is wholly perverse and based on total misreading of evidence and other materials on record. Mr. Bhansali would contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing 30% contributory negligence of the deceased for the accident, which is also ex-facie clear from perusal of Naksha Mauka Ex.11 and the available material. Mr. Bhansali submits that the learned Tribunal has recorded finding about contributory negligence based on mere ipse-dixit of learned Tribunal as well as conjectures and surmises inasmuch as no material was available on record to show that deceased has not taken reasonable care for safety, more particularly when the evidence tendered by the appellants remained unrebutted. Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-. Mr. Bhansali submits that the evidence was very much available on record to show that besides agricultural income, the deceased was also earning by keeping live stocks and there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to reduce the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- which was proved by the appellants. Mr. Bhansali has urged that deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased by the learned Tribunal is excessive keeping in view the number of dependents and as such the compensation deserves enhancement. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal, while quantifying the amount of compensation, has not cared to grant any compensation with respect to future prospects, and even in case of self employed 30% hike in the income ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal, while quantifying the amount of compensation, has not cared to grant any compensation with respect to future prospects, and even in case of self employed 30% hike in the income ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is not in the nature of pittance, as quantified by the learned Tribunal, and the same merits adequate enhancement for making it just and reasonable compensation under these heads. Learned counsel would contend that 30% deduction from the amount of compensation quantified for funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love & affection for the alleged contributory negligence of the deceased is perverse and dehors the prescribed cannons of justice. Lastly, Mr. Bhansali has also sought interest @12% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the inception of the claim petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on following legal precedents: Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2001 WLC (SC) Civil 116) Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (MACD 2012 (SC) 97) Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. ( (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) Vimal Kanwar & Ors. vs. Kishore Dan & Ors. ( (2013) 7 SCC 476 ) Pramodkumar Rashikbhai Jhaveri vs. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak & Ors. ( AIR 2002 SC 2864 ) 10. E converso, Mr. Johari, learned counsel for the respondent Insurer, submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable which calls for no interference. Mr. Johari submits that at the time of accident, deceased was accompanied by two pillion riders, and therefore, it is a clear case of contributory negligence as he has violated the safety measures to prevent accident. Mr. Johari would contend that Section 128 of the Act of 1988 prohibits plying of two wheeled motorcycle with two pillion rider as such violation of law by the deceased cannot be excused to upset finding on Issue No.1 & 3. Mr. Johari has argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly pressed into service the multiplier of 15, which warrants no interference. 11. Mr. Johari has argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly pressed into service the multiplier of 15, which warrants no interference. 11. Joining issue with the appellants on the rate of interest, learned counsel submits that interest has direct nexus with the prevailing rates and accordingly interest is to be awarded. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and thoroughly scanned the entire record of the learned Tribunal. 13. With a view to appreciate the afflictions of the appellants against the impugned award, it would be proper to examine it under different heads for quantifying just and reasonable compensation. A. ISSUE RELATING TO NEGLIGENCE/CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE CONCERNING THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN ACCIDENT: In order to thrash out the matter for ascertaining cause of accident, resulting in calamity, the impugned award deserves judicial scrutiny on Issue No.1 & 3. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 partially against the appellants by holding deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle negligent for occurrence of accident. While deciding Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal apportioned in proportion of 30% negligence of the deceased and 70% to the truck driver. There remains no quarrel that in accident claim cases doctrine of contributory negligence is of great significance. 14. In Jones vs. Livox Quarries Ltd. (1952) 2 QB 608, as per Lord Denning, “A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man, he might be hurt himself; and in his reckonings he must take into account the possibility of others being careless.” In common parlance, the theory of contributory negligence comes into play only when the person who suffers injury or dies in an accident, is found to have contributed in the accident. 15. The crucial question that has cropped up for consideration is whether deceased has failed to use reasonable care for safety of either himself or his property so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of its own wrong. Merely because the deceased was plying motorbike with two pillion riders, it cannot be said that his act or omission amounts to one of ordinary care as the expression “contributory negligence” does not mean breach of duty. Merely because the deceased was plying motorbike with two pillion riders, it cannot be said that his act or omission amounts to one of ordinary care as the expression “contributory negligence” does not mean breach of duty. If the findings on Issue No.1 & 3 are examined on the touchstone of evidence and other material available on record, then it would ipso facto reveal that for blaming the deceased contributorily negligent for accident, the learned Tribunal has not applied the yardsticks and parameters for determining the issue relating to contributory negligence. 16. It is trite that, while apportioning the claim and reducing damages, the Court should take into account the respective blameworthiness of the parties as also the causative potency of their acts or omissions. If the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 & 3 are critically examined in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, then, in my opinion, while apportioning 30% negligence on the part of deceased, the learned Tribunal has not made any endeavour to properly examine the alleged blameworthiness of the deceased. Ex-facie, the findings, appears to have been based on misreading of evidence tendered by the appellants to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, has not been properly impeached during cross-examination and the respondents have not adduced any evidence to prove contributory negligence. Burden of proving Issue No.3 was on the respondent insurer and the said burden has admittedly not been discharged by the insurer. This aspect, in my view, has not been addressed by the learned Tribunal to make finding on Issue No.1 & 3 per-se vulnerable. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Pramodkumar Rashikbhai Jhaveri (supra), while dealing with the doctrine of contributory negligence, has elaborately discussed its meaning varying with circumstances and factual situation of each case, and held: 8. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as 'negligence.' Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence" it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong." 9. Subject to non-requirement of the existence of duty, the question of contributory negligence is to be decided on the same principle on which the question of defendant's negligence is decided. The standard of reasonable man is as relevant in the case of plaintiff's contributory negligence as in the case of defendant's negligence. But the degree of want of care which will constitute contributory negligence, varies with the circumstances and the factual situation of the case. The following observation of the High Court of Australia in Astley vs. Austrust Ltd. (1999) 73 ALJR 403 is worthy of quoting: "A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence; in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage suffered; and in yet other cases the nature of the duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property." 10. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property." 10. It has been accepted as a valid principle by various judicial authorities that where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. In Swadling vs. Cooper (1931) A.C. 1 at page 9, Lord Hailsham said: "Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself constitute negligence: the plaintiff has no right to complain if in the agony of the collision the defendant fails to take some step which might have prevented a collision unless that step is one which a reasonably careful man would fairly be expected to take in the circumstances." 11. It is important to note that the respondents did not contend before the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the driver of the car. There was not even an allegation in the written statement filed by the respondents that the car driver was negligent and the accident occurred as result of partial negligence of the car driver. During the trial of the case, there was an attempt on the part of the respondents to contend that the driver of the car was trying to overtake a truck which was going ahead of the car. The appellant-car driver had also pleaded that the truck driven by the second respondent was trying to overtake another car, which was going ahead of the truck. But these circumstances are not proved by satisfactory evidence. One expert had also given evidence in this case but he had not seen the accident spot. His opinion was based on the observation of the damaged parts of the two vehicles. The total width of the tarred portion of the road was 22 feet and there were mud shoulders on either side having a width of three feet. One expert had also given evidence in this case but he had not seen the accident spot. His opinion was based on the observation of the damaged parts of the two vehicles. The total width of the tarred portion of the road was 22 feet and there were mud shoulders on either side having a width of three feet. It is proved by satisfactory evidence that the offending truck had come to the central portion of the road and there was only a three feet width of the road on the left side of the car driven by the appellant. In this factual situation, the High Court was not justified in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. It would, if at all, only prove that the appellant had not shown extraordinary precaution. The truck driven by the second respondent almost came to the center of the road and the appellant must have been put in a dilemma and in the agony of that moment, the appellant's failure to swerve to the extreme left of the road did not amount to negligence. Thus, there was no contributory negligence on his part especially when the second respondent, the truck driver had no case that the appellant was negligent. 18. Therefore, in totality, the finding of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 & 3 is founded on presumption and not borne out by records. Merely because the deceased was plying motorbike with two pillion riders, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is not possible to infer that he has contributed for cause of the accident. Plying motorcycle by the deceased without adhering to safety measures for himself and pillion riders may constitute an offence but that itself is not sufficient to record a finding of negligence against him. My this view is fortified by a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh & Ors. ( AIR 2008 SC 2405 ), wherein Court held: “If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck who was driving rashly and negligently. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” 19. Well it is true that Section 128 of the Act of 1988 postulates certain safety measures and ordains that two wheeled motorcycle is to be plied with only one pillion rider but prevailing Indian conditions are not unknown to all of us that at times an incumbent passenger has no option but to travel, on account of exigencies, emergencies, or paucity of transport, by accepting whatever transport is readily available. The scarcity of transport vehicles in rural areas has created a situation where often two wheeled motorbikes are plied with more than one pillion rider. It is really strange that how and in what manner the learned Tribunal has apportioned 30% responsibility to the deceased for occurrence of accident. On appreciation of facts, it is amply clear that it was head on collision between motorbike and the truck and therefore the truck, which was a heavy vehicle, ought to have been driven with greater care and responsibility. 20. Thus, on objective analysis of the findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 & 3, I am not persuaded to concur with the said finding and am unable to hold that deceased has contributed for the occurrence of the accident in any manner. Accordingly, finding of the learned Tribunal in this behalf is reversed by holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck. B. ISSUE RELATING TO QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: (i) Compensation for loss of dependency 21. Now switching on to finding on Issue No.2, suffice it to observe that appellants have tendered evidence to prove monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/-whereas the learned Tribunal has reduced it to Rs.1500/-per month. B. ISSUE RELATING TO QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: (i) Compensation for loss of dependency 21. Now switching on to finding on Issue No.2, suffice it to observe that appellants have tendered evidence to prove monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/-whereas the learned Tribunal has reduced it to Rs.1500/-per month. The appellants have made endeavour to prove age of the deceased as 28 years whereas the learned Tribunal has found it to be 30 years and thereafter it has applied multiplier of 15 for assessing the compensation for loss of dependency. 22. A close scrutiny of evidence of witnesses AW1 & AW2 makes it amply clear that deceased was earning more than Rs.3,000/- per month from agricultural income as well as income from live-stocks. Although both the witnesses have tried to embark an embellished version by projecting monthly income of deceased at Rs.5,000/- or more, but nonetheless during cross-examination no endeavour is made by the insurer to impeach their testimony for assessing his monthly income less than Rs.3,000/- which was pleaded in the claim petition. That apart, there remains no quarrel that no evidence is tendered by the respondent insurer for making an endeavour to slash monthly income of the deceased less than Rs.3,000/-. This being the situation, there appears to be no justification for the learned Tribunal to slash half the income of the deceased for arriving at the total amount of compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency”. 23. Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. (supra), by taking into account such a fact situation, held: 22. Appellants' claimed a sum of Rs.2,36,000/-. But PW-1 widow of the deceased said that her husband's income was Rs.1,500/-per month. PW-4 brother of the deceased also supported the same version. No contra evidence has been adduced in regard to that aspect. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/-. 24. As regards the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal, even by taking the age of the deceased as 30 plus in terms of second schedule, appropriate multiplier is of 17 and not 15 which is pressed into service by the learned Tribunal. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,500/-. 24. As regards the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal, even by taking the age of the deceased as 30 plus in terms of second schedule, appropriate multiplier is of 17 and not 15 which is pressed into service by the learned Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel that the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd against the personal expenses of the deceased ignoring the number of dependents, I feel persuaded to concur with the contention of the appellants for the simple reason that deceased is survived by three dependents. As such 1/4th deduction for personal and living expenses can be pressed into service as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), laying the criteria for deduction against personal expenses: 30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be onethird (1/3rd) where the number of dependent 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. 25. The amount of compensation for loss of dependency is re-assessed as under: 2250 (3000–750) x 17 x 12 = 4,59,000/- (ii) Compensation for future prospects: 26. Deceased was a self employed individual and as such the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future prospects. Hon’ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi (supra), while distinguishing Sarla Verma’s case (supra) has allowed 30% increase in the total income of the deceased who was self employed or in receipt of fixed wages in the backdrop of present social scenario and steep rise in cost of living. The Court held: 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi (supra), while distinguishing Sarla Verma’s case (supra) has allowed 30% increase in the total income of the deceased who was self employed or in receipt of fixed wages in the backdrop of present social scenario and steep rise in cost of living. The Court held: 14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naove to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is selfemployed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are selfemployed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/ instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/ she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 27. I feel persuaded in the instant case to allow 30% increase in the total income of deceased who passed away at a very young age leaving entire family in penury. The amount of compensation for future prospects is re-assessed as under: 2250 (3000–750) x 30/100 x 17 x 12 = 1,37,700/- (iii) Compensation for loss of consortium/ love & affection: 28. The amount of compensation for future prospects is re-assessed as under: 2250 (3000–750) x 30/100 x 17 x 12 = 1,37,700/- (iii) Compensation for loss of consortium/ love & affection: 28. Learned Tribunal has assessed a very meager sum of compensation for loss of consortium and love and affection. The accident has engulfed life of Digvijay Singh at the age of 30 leaving the entire family in lurch. I am really amazed that the learned Tribunal has not examined the serious calamity in the bereaved family, more particularly the fact that first appellant has suffered the agony of widowhood in her early 20’s and both the minor children have lost their father at the age of 30. Suffering of the family due to untimely death of the bread winner Digvijay Singh ought to have been examined by the learned Tribunal for awarding just compensation under both these heads. As a matter of fact, human life is very precious and loss of spouse in early 20’s is irreparable, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, but while awarding compensation under this head, Courts can make some endeavour to gauze the wounds of a widow. Similarly, loss of fatherly affection for minor kids is of such a magnitude, which cannot be measured in terms of money. However, as the law of compensation is a welfare measure, a benevolent view is the need of the hour to give solace to the children who have lost their father at the age of 30 by way of awarding a reasonable amount of compensation. Hon’ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar & Ors. (supra), while examining compensation under these heads, observed that a conventional sum is to be awarded as compensation under these heads besides against funeral expenses. The approach of the learned Tribunal in slashing 30% amount from the quantified compensation is absolutely alien to law governing the said province and is liable to be deprecated. This clearly and unequivocally indicates that the learned Tribunal has acted in an absolutely mechanical manner while dealing with the issue relating to compensation under these heads. 29. Considering the facts in totality, it would be appropriate to award compensation for loss of consortium to the widow a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and for loss of love & fatherly affection to both the kids an equal amount of Rs.25,000/- each. 29. Considering the facts in totality, it would be appropriate to award compensation for loss of consortium to the widow a sum of Rs.50,000/-, and for loss of love & fatherly affection to both the kids an equal amount of Rs.25,000/- each. The appellants are also entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly this amount is liable to be added in the form of enhancement of the compensation. The amount of compensation for loss of consortium, love & affection is re-assessed as under: 50,000 + 50,000 = 1,00,000/- 30. The appellants are declared entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation by Rs.5,70,200/- while quantifying the total amount of compensation as Rs.7,06,700/- under various heads; viz., loss of dependency Rs.4,59,000, future prospects Rs.1,37,700, consortium Rs.50,000, love & affection Rs.50,000 and funeral expenses Rs.10,000/-. 31. In the final outcome, this appeal is allowed, and the Award dated 21st of January 1998 is modified, enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara to Rs.7,06,700/-while holding the respondents jointly and severally liable for payment of enhanced compensation amount. The appellants shall also be entitled to litigation expenses Rs.1,000/-, as awarded by learned Tribunal. 32. The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure payment of entire amount including the enhanced amount of compensation after adjusting the amount already deposited and disbursed to the appellants. Appellants would be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition as per prevailing rates, without disturbing the finding of the learned Tribunal for granting interest @12% on the awarded amount. The respondents are directed to pay the requisite amount of compensation to the appellants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Costs are made easy.