JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat for respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 being owner of the vehicle in question though served, has remained absent. Appellants are legal heirs of original claimant whereas respondents are original opponents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Panchmahals @ Godhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 698 of 1991, wherein by impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2014, the tribunal has while allowing the application for compensation filed by the present appellant, awarded an amount of Rs. 2,33,900/- with 9% interest and cost in favour of the claimant for the accidental death of one Devchandbhai Makanbhai Prajapati in vehicular accident. 2. The appellants have challenged the award only for the quantum of compensation, when they are claiming Rs. 4,20,000/- as compensation for such accidental death of the victim and when there is no cross - appeal either by the owner or insurance company, now it becomes clear that victim of the accident and its result is not disputed. However, even for scrutinizing the impugned judgment that whether the award of compensation is just and reasonable or not, the basic information needs to be recollected before deciding this appeal finally. The relevant information can be summarized as under: Incident:- Victim - Devchandbhai Makanbhai Prajapati was serving as a cleaner in Mini-Bus bearing No. GJ-17-T-489 owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. On 02.02.1991, when bus was going from Godhra to Dahod with passengers, at 10:00 a.m. bus was driven by its driver in full speed and in such a rash and negligent manner that he could not control the same and thereby bus went into road side ditch and turned turtle. In such incident, victim has sustained serious and grievous injuries on his head and on other parts of the body, for which, he was treated as indoor patient in Godhra Hospital for 3 days and then as the injuries were serious, transferred to SSG Hospital, Vadodara and after 5 days transferred to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad on 10.02.1991, where he succumbed to such injuries on 11.02.1991. 3. 3. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, following information is material:- Name of the victim Devchandbhai Makanbhai Prajapati Result of the incident Fatal Age of the victim 27 years Earning activity Serving as a Cleaner in a bus Income of the victim Rs.1800/- p.m. Marital status Married Claim Widow and 3 minor children and widow mother Compensation awarded by the tribunal Rs.1,98,900/- Loss of dependency considering Rs.1000/- as monthly income and Rs.300/- as prospective increase in income. Thereby Rs.1300/- as earning capacity less Rs.325/- being 1/4 th towards personal expenses and thereby Rs.975/- as monthly dependency multiplied by 12 x 17 as applicable multiplier ": Rs. 10,000/- Pain, shock, suffering, medical expenses and transportation : Rs.25,000/- Loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.2,33,900/- Total Compensation 4. In background of above details, if we peruse the available Record and Proceedings received from the tribunal, it becomes clear that though claimants are fair enough in claiming compensation by disclosing that deceased was earning Rs. 1800/- at the age of 27 years, it becomes clear that tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable amount towards loss of earning capacity. It cannot be ignored that since 1988, the statute i.e. the Motor Vehicles Act itself states that notional income of a person should be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and thereby Rs. 1250/- per month. As against that, tribunal has considered only Rs. 1000/- as monthly income and added Rs. 300/- as prospective income. Considering the time gap from the date of enactment of such act and award of compensation i.e. more than two decades, in fact, there is need to increase such notional income and thereby even if we do not consider income of the deceased as pleaded and stated by the claimants, considering them as an interested witness, at least some amount needs to be considered as prospective earning capacity instead of reducing it to Rs. 1300/-. It cannot be ignored that there is no evidence in rebuttal by the respondent so as to discard the fact that victim was earning Rs. 1800/- per month. Similarly, the deduction of 1/4th cannot be permitted, the fact remains that if we apply unit system then only 1/6th amount would goes in favour of the deceased and, therefore, 1/6th can be deducted from the earning capacity. Therefore, it would be appropriate to consider Rs. 1800/- per month. Similarly, the deduction of 1/4th cannot be permitted, the fact remains that if we apply unit system then only 1/6th amount would goes in favour of the deceased and, therefore, 1/6th can be deducted from the earning capacity. Therefore, it would be appropriate to consider Rs. 2000/- as prospective income of the deceased and thereby even if we reduce 1/4th amount towards his personal expenses, the total amount, that may be awarded to the claimants under the head of loss of earning capacity would be Rs. 3,06,000/- and, therefore, claimants entitled to such amount. It cannot be ignored that after decision of the Honorable Supreme Court, it is settled legal position that in case of survival of victim after couple of days, claimants are entitled to reasonable amount towards pain, shock and suffering, so also for medical expenses, treatment charges and other allied expenses. 5. In the present case, it has been found that victim has been admitted to Godhra Hospital, then to Vadodara and then shifted to Ahmedabad and, therefore, claimants must have spent for transportation and treatment etc. and hence Rs. 10,000/- on such count with the compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is certainly inadequate and, therefore, separate amount of compensation needs to be awarded towards pain, shock and suffering and expenditure for treatment and transportation etc. It would be appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- on both such head, i.e. Rs. 20,000/-. 6. Similarly, when the Honourable Supreme Court has awarded in all more than Rs. 3,00,000/- for loss of consortium, loss of estate in case of minor, the tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 25,000/- under different heads including compensation for funeral expenses, which should be generally Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, an award of Rs. 25,000/- on different heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses by the tribunal results into non-exercising jurisdiction legally, since it amounts to not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of consortium and loss of estate, which also needs to be awarded separately. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award additional Rs. 25,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- under the head of loss of estate. 7. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award additional Rs. 25,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- under the head of loss of estate. 7. In view of above facts, circumstances and discussion, considering the available material on record, it would be appropriate to revise the amount of compensation, awarded to the victim - claimant - appellant in following manner: Rs. 3,06,000/- Loss of dependency, considering Rs. 2000/- as monthly income and Rs. 500/- towards personal expenses and thereby Rs. 1500/- as monthly dependency multiplied by 1500 x 12 x 17 as applicable multiplier; Rs. 10,000/- towards Pain, shock, and suffering Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and transportation; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. 7.1 Therefore, claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,86,000/- as total amount of compensation, instead of Rs. 2,33,900/- as awarded by the tribunal. If such amount is deposited, then, claimant is entitled to additional Rs. 1,52,100/-. 8. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, it cannot be ignored that there is no evidence in rebuttal to disprove the version of the claimant that deceased was earning Rs. 1800/- p.m. from masoning and agricultural work. It is now well-known that amount charged by such skilled workers are sufficient enough and not meagre amount, may be because of shortage of such skilled workers and because of inflation and devaluation of value of rupee from time to time. Therefore also, since the notional income suggested in the Act is before more than two decades, it requires reconsideration by enhancing the same. Similarly, for the same reason, even if it is stated that deceased was not having a permanent job and thereby, there cannot be a consideration of future prospects, the fact remains that future prospects are not to be considered only because in case of salaried persons, but in any case every person in his life would certainly earn better by passage of time and otherwise also, inflation and fall in value of rupee is generally continued day after another and therefore, on that count, it would be appropriate to consider some prospective income of the victim of such cases. In this respect, the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India may be referred:- (1) Smt. Neeta Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, M.S.R.T.C., Kolhapur reported in AIR 2015 SC (Supp.) 565; and (2) Asha Verman Vs. Maharaj Singh reported in (2015) 42 SCD 537 : AIR 2015 SC (Supp.) 1841. 9. In the present case, though claimants have claimed that victim was earning Rs. 1800/- p.m., the Tribunal has taken only Rs. 1,000/- as monthly earning capacity and for prospective income, though Tribunal may add more amount, the Tribunal has simply added Rs. 300/- and considered Rs. 1,300/- as average monthly dependency for considering the quantum of compensation, though claimants have claimed Rs. 1800/- as monthly income and thereby, average income for dependency would be more than Rs. 10,000/-. 10. The Tribunal has awarded meagre amount for loss of consortium so also for loss of love and affection and also for loss of estate, which amount would be now minimum Rs. 1 Lac on such heads as decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Jiju Kurivila v. Kunjujamma Mohan reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the award even if there may be marginal difference in calculation, if we recalculate the quantum, not as suggested and pressed by the appellant, but considering the overall facts and circumstances emerging from record. 11. For such determination, I am placing reliance on following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:- 1. Anjani Singh v. Salauddin reported in 2014 (6) SCALE 55 ; 2. Asha Verman v. Maharaj Singh reported in (2015) 42 SCD 537; 3. Kala Devi v. Bhagwan Das Chauhan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 771 ; and 4. Chanderi Devi v. Jaspal Singh reported in 2015 (4) SCALE 390 ; 5. Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2260 . 12. In view of above facts and circumstances, appeal is allowed as aforesaid. Impugned judgment is modified to the effect that now claimant is entitled to receive total amount of Rs. 3,86,000/- with 9% interest and cost. If respondents have already paid an amount of compensation as per impugned award, then they are liable to pay only difference to the claimants. 13. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Impugned judgment is modified to the effect that now claimant is entitled to receive total amount of Rs. 3,86,000/- with 9% interest and cost. If respondents have already paid an amount of compensation as per impugned award, then they are liable to pay only difference to the claimants. 13. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith.