JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. The appellants-original claimants have taken out this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with following prayers; (a). Admit this appeal. (b). Allow this appeal by suitably modifying the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims at Rajkot, in M.A.C.P. No.1446/2011 dated 2/5/2015 by enhancing the cost of the award to the tune of Rs.1,22,000/-. (c). Award the cost through-out. (d). Such other and further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit. And for this act of kindness Applicant as in duly bound shall for every pray. The claimants have the grievances qua the quantum of amount awarded for the reasons stated in the appeal. 2. Facts, as could be gathered from the appeal memo, deserve to be set out as under; (1) That on 21/09/2011, the deceased was travelling in the chhakdo rickshaw bearing no. GJ-10U-5068 with the goods at around 8 in the morning, when reaching near Hotel Gurukrupa bus bearing no. GJ-3W-9917 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the said chakkdo rickshaw from behind. Due to the said accident the deceased suffered grievous injuries and thus he succumbed to the injuries. Thereby the present appellant filed the claim MACT No.1464/2011 for compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- against the present respondents. (2) The deceased at the time of accident was aged 53 years and was engaged in agricultural activity and farming. (3) However, the learned Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation by applying multiplier to the income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal erred in not following the schedule as mentioned under Section 163- A of M.V.Act. (4) The learned tribunal erred in calculating the dependency loss by considering the age of the deceased as 60 rather than taking the age of the deceased at 53 years. The learned tribunal should have considered age of the deceased and thereby should have awarded by following the schedule mentioned under section 163-A of the M.V.Act. (5) The learned tribunal also erred in not awarding the conventional amount as mentioned in the schedule u/s 163-A of the M.V. Act. 3. The learned tribunal should have considered age of the deceased and thereby should have awarded by following the schedule mentioned under section 163-A of the M.V.Act. (5) The learned tribunal also erred in not awarding the conventional amount as mentioned in the schedule u/s 163-A of the M.V. Act. 3. The entire appeal is required to be disposed of at this stage without any elaborate reasoning, as there is clear error on the part of the Tribunal in considering the age of the deceased to be 60 years, which was based upon the Postmortem report, though, there was Voter I.D. Card available on record being Exhibit no.15, which would indicate the age of the deceased and if it has remained unchallenged, then the same would lend more credence to the claimants' claim for treating the age to be 53 years and not 60 years. The claim petition was under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act and hence structured formula would be applicable. 4. Shri Nanavati, learned advocate for defendant no.2 could not controvert the aspect, though, he submitted that a bit the Tribunal is just and proper. 5. As a result thereof, the appeal is partly allowed. The award is required to be modified as under; 6. As the deceased was 53 years of age at the time of accident, following the schedule, the income i.e. loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. Therefore, deducting ?rd amount i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- from Rs.3,60,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the amount towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,40,000/- plus Rs.2,000/- towards Funeral Expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the total amount under all heads comes to Rs.2,49,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,27,500/- to the claimants. Therefore, Rs.2,49,500/- minus Rs.1,27,500/- Rs.1,22,000/-. 7. Hence, the enhanced amount of Rs.1,22,000/- shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within four weeks from today. Appeal Partly Allowed.