JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. All these appeals are arising out of common and consolidated judgment and award dated 21/11/1997 rendered by the M.A.C. Tribunal [Aux.], Surendranagar in group M.A.C. Petition Nos. 603 to 612 of 1989 with M.A.C. Petition Nos. 654, 656, 657 and 666 of 1989. The appeals are filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. When none of the respondents have preferred any appeal against the impugned award, it becomes clear that now there is no issue regarding inter-se liability of the respondents with reference to inter-se negligence of both the tort feasors, so also liability of insurance companies of both the vehicles involved in the accident to make the payment to the claimants. Therefore, factual details of incident and history thereafter are not much material. However, the same is well described in the pleadings and impugned award and, therefore, except recollecting relevant information, the only issue which requires determination by this Court is regarding scrutiny and ascertainment that 'whether amount of compensation awarded in each such claim petition is just and reasonable in accordance with the settled principle of law or whether it requires any modification by way of enhancing the amount of compensation either as prayed for or that may be deemed fit and proper. 2. However, it would be appropriate to recollect here that most of the appellants are passengers in one of the vehicles being Matador bearing No. GAA 6317 and thereby they have not contributed anything so far as incident of accident is concerned and, therefore, this is a case of composite negligence of two tort feasors and in absence of any contribution of the appellants/claimants in the incident, they are entitled to receive full set of compensation from either of the tort feasors irrespective of their inter-se liability based upon the contribution in negligence by them. 3. 3. So far as incident is concerned, it is contended and which is not rebutted by any of the respondents that on 25/5/1989 all the claimants were traveling in Matador No. GAA 6317 at about 10.00 pm and near Thapa village on National Highway No. 8-A, when respondent No. 1 was driving his Matador on correct side of the road and proceeding from Chotila to Sayla side, at the place of accident, one truck bearing No. GRQ 4629 driven rashly and negligently and in excessive speed by respondent No. 1, came from opposite side without blowing horn and without observing traffic rules and because of his rash and negligent driving, he lost his control over the truck, which resulted into dragging of truck on wrong side of the road and thereupon, front portion of the truck had dashed with the front portion of the Matador. Thereby, it was almost head on collision, but as observed by the Tribunal, when Matador was on its correct side and when truck has been dragged to some extent on wrong side, after appreciating relevant evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that both the drivers are negligent and therefore, the contribution of the truck driver in negligence is fixed as 60%, whereas negligence of matador driver is fixed as 40%. Therefore, though the insurance companies are liable to indemnify such percentage of amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to full set of compensation from any of the tort feasors, because their liability is joint and several. However, as recorded hereinabove, such part of the award is not challenged and, therefore, there is no reason to discuss the nature of the incident or the issue regarding contribution of negligence of either of the drivers. 4. It is admitted position that pursuant to such incident, claimants/appellants have suffered grievous injuries for which they have filed separate claim petitions and therefore, now we have to scrutinize the quantum portion of each appeal separately. 5. Considering the fact that basic principle of awarding compensation in injury case and fatal case would not be common, the appeals are bifurcated in such two groups i.e. injured victims and deceased victims. Therefore, reasonings for enhancement of compensation in First Appeal Nos. 811 to 815 and 817 of 1998 would be common, so also decision applicable in such cases would be common. Therefore, reasonings for enhancement of compensation in First Appeal Nos. 811 to 815 and 817 of 1998 would be common, so also decision applicable in such cases would be common. Therefore, the basic information of all above cases are summarized in following manner:- First Appeal No. 811/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 603/1989 Injury Appellant Prafulbhai Vithalbhai Patel Age 35 Years Occupation Government Certified Contractor Income Rs. 21,000/- per annum (determined by the Tribunal) Deposition Exhibit – 72 Claim Amount Rs. 5,00,000/- Injury * Fracture Femur (RT) Exhibit 67 & 68 * Fracture Knee (RT) * Fracture Humerus (RT) * Injury above eye (LT) * Injury on teeth & chin Treatment Particulars * 70 days indoor treatment * 3 years outdoor treatment * 3 operation carried out * Traction 70 days * Plaster on hand – 2 months * Plaster on Leg – 2 months * Physiotherapy – 6 months Treating Doctors * Civil Hospital Rajkot Indoor – 01 days * S.S.G. Hospital Baroda Indoor – 70 days (26-05-1989 to 04-08-1989) * Dr. Anil Shah OPD at Baroda Exhibit 69 * Ratadia to Gaduli PHC OPD (Exh.70 to 73) * Dr. Hotchandani at Gandhidham for Physiotherapy 4 months (Exhibit 76) Disability 65 % Total disability 2 Limbs (20 % RT Upper Limb + 45 % RT Lower Limb) (Exhibit 119) Actual Expenses * Rs. 15,000/- Medical Expenses * Rs. 7,000/- Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100 x 70 days) * Rs. 10,000/- Nutritive diet * Rs. 5500/- Attendant Exp. * Rs. 5000/- Transportation * Rs. 18500/- Salary to Dahyabhai Ex.53 * Rs. 6000/- Salary to Prakash Exh.53 * Rs. 6400/- Salary to Security Ex.53 First Appeal No. 812/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 605/1989) Injury Appellant Taraben Wd/o Gordhanbhai Bhailalbhai Patel Age 37 years Occupation Household works (Gratuitous Service) Income Rs. 750/- per month (determined by the Tribunal) Deposition Exhibit – 55 Claim Amount Rs. 1,50,000/- Injury * Fracture Calcaneum (RT) Exhibit 49 * Fracture Ribs (RT) Treatment Particulars * 36 days indoor treatment * 6 months outdoor treatment * 1 months Traction * 2 months Plaster Treating Doctors * Civil Hospital Rajkot Indoor – 01 days * S.S.G. Hospital Baroda Indoor – 02 days (28-05-1989 to 29-05-1989) * Our Lady Pillar Hospital Indore – 22 days * (29-05-1989 to 09-06-1989) Exhibit 44 * (09-06-1989 to 17-06-1989) Exhibit 46 * Dr. A.V. Patel Indore – 13 days * (14-07-1989 to 26-07-1989) Exhibit 49 Disability * 5 % of Body Ex.114 Actual Expenses * Rs. 7,000/- Medicine 6023/- Exh.45 to 47 * Rs. 3600/- Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100/36 days) * Rs. 2000/- Nutritive diet * Rs. 3600/- Attendant Exp. * Rs. 2000/- Transportation First Appeal No. 813/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 666/1989 Injury Appellant Kokilaben @ Niranjanaben Prafulbhai Patel Age 33 Years Occupation Teacher and (Gratuitous Service) Income Rs. 1600/- per month (determined by Tribunal) Deposition Exhibit – 60 Claim Amount Rs. 1,00,000/- Injury * Fracture Ulna (RT) Exhibit - 103 * CLW Leg (RT), Various Injuries on body Treatment Particulars * 8 days indoor treatment * 3 months outdoor treatment * 1 operation carried out (plate inserted on RT Hand) * Physiotherapy – 3 months * 1.5 months Plaster Treating Doctors * Civil Hospital Rajkot Indoor – 01 days * S.S.G. Hospital Baroda Indoor – 07 days Exh.104 * Dr. Hotchandani Gandhidham for Physiotherapy Ex.61 Disability * 25 % RT Upper Limb Exh.124 (with consent reduced to 12.5 % body as a whole) Actual Expenses * Rs. 4,000/- Dr. Medicine * Rs. 700 Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100 x 20 days) * Rs. 2000/- Nutritive diet * Rs. 2500/- Attendant Exp. * Rs. 2200/- Physiotherapy 2200-00 bills produced Ex.61 First Appeal No. 814/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 611/1989 Injury Appellant Vitthalbhai Harmanbhai Patel Age 57 Years Occupation Service Income Rs. 4100/- per month (determined by the Tribunal) Deposition Exhibit – 59 Claim Amount Rs. 1,00,000/- Injury * Fracture Tibia (LT) Exh.90 * Injuries on Chest and Shoulder Treatment Particulars * 26 day indoor treatment * 5 week Plasters * Physiotherapy – 2 months Treating Doctors * Civil Hospital Rajkot Indoor – 01 days * S.S.G. Hospital Baroda Indoor – 05 days (27-05-1989 to 06-06-1989) Dr. K.C. Patel Indoor – 20 days (Lady Pillar Hospital) (01-06-1989 to 20-06-1989) Exh.90 Disability * 30 % Lt Lower Limb Exh.123 (with  consent reduced to 15 % body as a whole) Actual Expenses * Rs. 5,000/- Dr. Medicine – 776.00 Bills produced Exh.95 * Rs. 2500/- Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100 x 25 days) * Rs. 2500/- Nutritive diet * Rs. 1000/- Attendant Exp. * Rs. 2500/- Transportation First Appeal No. 815/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 610/1989) Injury Appellant Minor Nehalben Prafulbhai Patel Age 8 Years Occupation Student Income Rs. 5,000/- Dr. Medicine – 776.00 Bills produced Exh.95 * Rs. 2500/- Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100 x 25 days) * Rs. 2500/- Nutritive diet * Rs. 1000/- Attendant Exp. * Rs. 2500/- Transportation First Appeal No. 815/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 610/1989) Injury Appellant Minor Nehalben Prafulbhai Patel Age 8 Years Occupation Student Income Rs. 75/- per month (determined by the Tribunal) Deposition Exhibit – 52 Claim Amount Rs. 1,00,000/- Injury * Fracture Femur (RT) Exh.89 * Fracture Calcaneum (RT) * Fracture 5th M.T. (RT) * C.L.W. on face, neck & chest Treatment Particulars * 21 days indoor treatment * 6 weeks outdoor treatment * 1 Operation Carried out * 20 days Traction * Hip Spica Pop 10 weeks * Physiotherapy – 4 months Treating Doctors * Civil Hospital Rajkot Indoor – 01 days * S.S.G. Hospital Baroda Indoor – 20 days (27-05-1989 to 16-06-1989) (Exhibit 86, 87 & 88) Disability * 20 % Lt Lower Limb Exh.122 Actual Expenses * Rs. 5000/- Dr. Medicine * Rs. 2000/- Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100 x 25 days) * Rs. 3500/- Nutritive diet * Rs. 3000/- Attendant Exp. * Rs. 3000/- Transportation First Appeal No. 817/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 608/1989 Injury Appellant Varsaben Pramodbhai Patel Age 27 Years Occupation Household work and part time work Income Rs. 2000/- per months (determined by the Tribunal) Deposition Exhibit – 58 Claim Amount Rs. 3,00,000/- Loss of Child Due to gravity of injuries Pregnancy was aborted Injury * Fracture Scapula neck shoulder (left) * Fracture Spines, Multiple at dorsal and lumber region * Fracture 12th Vertebral * Injuries of chest and abdomen Treatment Particulars * 34 days indoor treatment * 1 year OPD treatment * Physiotherapy * Abortion, traction * Jacket plaster * Milography, two operations Treating Doctors * Civil Hospital Rajkot Indoor – 01 day * S.S.G. Hospital Baroda Indoor  - 04 days (27-05-1989 to 30-05-1989) (Exh.81) * Dr. Lilaben Patel Gynecologist Indoor 05 days (01-06-1989 to 05-06-1989) Exh.84 * Dr. Manoj Desai Indoor – 24 days (05-06-1989 to 29-06-1989) (Exh.82, 83) Disability * 40 % of Body Ex.121 (with consent reduced to 20 % body as whole) Actual Expenses * Rs. 12,000/- Dr. Medicine 9186.75 Bills Produced Ex.84 * Rs. 3400/- Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100 x 34 days) Rs. 4500/- Nutritive diet, Rs. 3000/- Attendant Exp. Rs. Manoj Desai Indoor – 24 days (05-06-1989 to 29-06-1989) (Exh.82, 83) Disability * 40 % of Body Ex.121 (with consent reduced to 20 % body as whole) Actual Expenses * Rs. 12,000/- Dr. Medicine 9186.75 Bills Produced Ex.84 * Rs. 3400/- Indoor daily Exp. (Rs. 100 x 34 days) Rs. 4500/- Nutritive diet, Rs. 3000/- Attendant Exp. Rs. 2500/- Transportation First Appeal No. 816/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 609/1989 Death Appellants-Legal Heirs of deceased "Taraben V. Patel" Vitthalbhai Harmanbhai Patel and Others Age Age of deceased 50 years Occupation Household work (Gratuitous Services) Income Income determined by the Tribunal Rs. 1000/ per month Rs. 400/- dependency benefit:- Claimant Submissions Rs. 1100/- p.m. from bay sitting and Household work (Gratuitous Services Future Prospective arise in income NIL Deduction towards personal expenses Tribunal deducted lumsum amount of Rs. 600/- p.m. towards personal expenses Claimants Submission As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 it ought to have been 1/3rd Deposition Exhibit – 59 Claim Amount Rs. 2,00,000/- Multiplier Multiplier adopted by the Learned Tribunal – 11 Claimant Submissions As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 it ought to have been 13 Conventional Heads * Tribunal awarded Rs. 10000/- only First Appeal No. 818/1998 (M.A.C.P.) No. 607/1989 Death Appellants-Legal Heirs of deceased "Gordhanbhai Bhailal Patel Taraben Gordhanbhai Patel and Others Age Age of deceased 41 years Occupation Service and Agricultural Income Income determined by the Tribunal Rs. 2000/- per months Future Prospective arise in income 30 % ought to have been considered by the Learned Tribunal placing reliance upon Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbeer reported in 2013 (9) SCC 54 Deduction towards personal Expenses of deceased The Learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses Claimant Submissions As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 it ought to have been 1/4th considering 4 dependents Deposition Exh.55 Claim Amount Rs. 11,00,000/- Multiplier Multiplier adopted by the Learned Tribunal – 15 Claimant Submissions As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 it ought to have been 14 Conventional Heads * Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- only 6. 11,00,000/- Multiplier Multiplier adopted by the Learned Tribunal – 15 Claimant Submissions As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 it ought to have been 14 Conventional Heads * Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- only 6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the appellants is relying upon the following decisions:- (i) Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar reported in (2014) 5 SCC 330 (ii) Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2014 SC 736 (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusuma reported in 2011 (3) GLH 193 (iv) Judgment rendered by this High Court in First Appeal No. 5317 of 2007 dated 19/6 2015 (v) Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (vi) Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 (9) SCC 54 . 7. The perusal of above referred basic information makes it clear that almost in all cases, the Tribunal has considered less income than what is proved by the claimants and similarly the Tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability arbitrarily and in some cases, proper multiplier is not taken. Whereas in all the cases, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is not properly considered and awarded though there is multiple fractures and evidence of prolong treatment and expenditure is available on record. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, the claimants/appellants are entitled to following amount of compensation: "I The Tribunal has awarded following amount to the appellant of First Appeal No. 811/1998 accepting yearly income of Rs. 21,000/- and 30% disability and applying 12 as suitable multiplier:- Towards loss of earning Rs. 84,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 11,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 15,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs. 4,000/- Towards actual loss of income Rs. 3,000/- Towards transportation charges Rs. 2,000/- Total Rs. 1,19,000/- Whereas the record shows that the appellant has paid income tax for the year 1988-89 disclosing his yearly income as Rs. 12,000/-, but in the year 1989-90 he has disclosed his income as Rs. 1,75,000/- and, therefore, instead of considering yearly income as Rs. 1,75,000/-, when the appellant was registered contractor in Class-D, the Tribunal has considered Rs. 21,000/- as yearly income. 12,000/-, but in the year 1989-90 he has disclosed his income as Rs. 1,75,000/- and, therefore, instead of considering yearly income as Rs. 1,75,000/-, when the appellant was registered contractor in Class-D, the Tribunal has considered Rs. 21,000/- as yearly income. Therefore, it is clear and obvious that the Tribunal has failed to consider proper income of the Government approved contractor because even notional income is to be considered as Rs. 15,000/- pa and, therefore, even if we do not consider Rs. 1,75,000/- income, then considering the income of the previous year 1987-88, when the appellant has disclosed Rs. 18,000/- as yearly income in his income tax return, it would be safe to consider at least Rs. 30,000/- as yearly income including prospective earning capacity. Similarly when the appellant was admitted as indoor patient for 70 days, it is clear that he would not be in a position to continue his earning activity at least for six months and, therefore, award on such count also need to be modified. Similar is the position so far as award on other heads is concerned, when documentary evidence is available on record to prove that appellant has spent huge amount. The Tribunal has also failed to realize that the disability certified by the doctor is 65% without following principle by Castler to combine different disablement. Thereby, if we apply method of combining two different disabilities by Cassler's formula being x = a x b [100 - a] divided by 100, wherein 'x' is combined value of two different disablements, wherein 'a' is higher disablement and 'b' is lower disablement. Therefore, if we apply such formula to different disablements of 45% and 20%, as per evidence on record, then total disability would be 58% and not 65% as claimed by the appellant. However, the Tribunal has, instead of taking reasonable disablement, reduced it to almost 40% without any cogent reason. Therefore, even on safer side, if we consider 50% as reasonable disablement, then also considering 2nd Schedule under the Act when appellant is entitled to multiplier of 16 or 17, considering his age, loss of earning to the appellant/claimant would be 50% of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- pa, multiplied by 16 = Rs. 2,40,000/-. Therefore, even on safer side, if we consider 50% as reasonable disablement, then also considering 2nd Schedule under the Act when appellant is entitled to multiplier of 16 or 17, considering his age, loss of earning to the appellant/claimant would be 50% of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. Rs. 15,000/- pa, multiplied by 16 = Rs. 2,40,000/-. Therefore, considering other evidence on record, which is listed hereinabove in tabular form, the appellant is entitled to following amount towards just and fair compensation:- Towards loss of earning Rs. 2,40,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 30,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 22,000/- Towards rich/special diet Rs. 10,000/- Towards transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs. 5,500/- Total Rs. 3,12,500/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1,19,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,93,500/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. II The Tribunal has awarded following amount to the appellant of First Appeal No. 812/1998:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 6,750/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 6,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 7,500/- Towards other expenditure Rs. 3,000/- Towards actual loss of income Rs. 750/- Total Rs. 24,000/- Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to realize that the earning capacity of the housewife cannot be ignored and, hence it cannot be said that since she does not have any independent income, her earning capacity can be considered as only Rs. 750/-. As aforesaid, on all other counts also the Tribunal has reduced the amount of compensation arbitrarily without following settled legal position and, therefore, it would be appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation in following manner, considering Rs. 1500/- pm as earning capacity of the appellant and 16 as suitable multiplier considering the age of victim being 37 years and 5% disablement, which is proved on record. Therefore, considering other evidence on record, which is listed hereinabove in tabular form, the appellant is entitled to following amount towards just and fair compensation:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 14,400/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 15,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 7,000/- Towards other expenditure Rs. 3,600/- Towards rich/special diet Rs. 2,000/- Towards transportation charges Rs. 2,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs. 3,600/- Total Rs. 47,600/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 24,000/-. 14,400/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 15,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 7,000/- Towards other expenditure Rs. 3,600/- Towards rich/special diet Rs. 2,000/- Towards transportation charges Rs. 2,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs. 3,600/- Total Rs. 47,600/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 24,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 23,600/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. III The Tribunal has awarded following amount to the appellant of First Appeal No. 813/1998:- Towards future loss of income Rs. 24,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 7,500/- Towards other expenditure Rs. 3,000/- Towards actual loss of income Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs. 41,500/- Considering the fact that the appellant is serving as a Teacher and thereby having fixed income and when she is only 33 years of age, the Tribunal has erred to apply 10 only as suitable multiplier when it could be 18, observing that as a Teacher she would not suffer any difficulty in performing her duties though she has 25% disablement, which is considered as 12.5% by the Tribunal for earning capacity. The Tribunal has also failed to consider the prospective income and rise in salary because of inflation and increase in dearness allowance, so also consumer price index, whereby the salary of Rs. 1,587/- in the year 1989 is now increased to more than Rs. 30,000/- pm. Therefore, even if we do not consider Rs. 30,000/- as monthly earning capacity of the victim, considering the over-all situation including the fact that generally value of money is considered with reference to value of the gold and, therefore, if price of 10 grams gold in the year 1980 is around Rs. 300/- and at present is around Rs. 30,000/-. Thereby, it has increased by 100 times. Even if we do not consider increase in the earning capacity, it would be reasonable to consider the prospective earning capacity considering prospective increase in the salary as Rs. 3,000/-. There is no reason to deduct any amount from the actual bills produced on record for medicines, etc., and, therefore, considering 12.5% as disablement and Rs. 3,000/- as earning capacity and applying 16 as suitable multiplier, the appellant is entitled to following amount towards just and fair compensation:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 72,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 3,000/- as earning capacity and applying 16 as suitable multiplier, the appellant is entitled to following amount towards just and fair compensation:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 72,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 20,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 7,000/- Towards rich/special diet Rs. 2,000/- Towards actual loss of income Rs. 6,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 1,09,500/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 41,500/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 68,000/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. IV The Tribunal has awarded following amount to the appellant of First Appeal No. 814/1998:- Towards future loss of income Rs. 30,750/- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 5,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 2,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 7,500/- Towards other expenditure Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs. 48,250/- Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to realize that the appellant is serving in IPCL as a Technician i.e. purely skilled work and, therefore, as discussed in the previous case, the salary in the year 1989 cannot be taken as an earning capacity when value of rupee decreases year after year and even considering the age of the appellant at the relevant time as 57 years, the Tribunal has erred in not considering 8 as suitable multiplier. Therefore, considering the available evidence on record, which is reproduced hereinabove, the monthly earning capacity of the appellant can certainly be taken as Rs. 6,000/- with prospective income and applying 8 as suitable multiplier with 15% disability, as considered by the Tribunal for the fracture of tibia, the appellant would be entitled to following additional amount of compensation:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 86,400/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 25,000/- Towards medical & other expenses Rs. 7,500/- Towards transportation & attendant charges Rs. 3,500/- Towards rich/special diet Rs. 2,500/- Towards actual loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 1,34,900/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 48,250/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 86,650/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. V The Tribunal has awarded following amount to the appellant of First Appeal No. 815/1998:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 13,500/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 86,650/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. V The Tribunal has awarded following amount to the appellant of First Appeal No. 815/1998:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 13,500/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,000/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 12,000/- Towards other expenditure Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs. 31,500/- It cannot be ignored that the appellant is 8 years old minor girl, who has sustained multiple fractures with injuries on face, neck and chest for which she was treated as indoor patient for 21 days and outdoor patient for six weeks. She was operated for the fracture and doctor has certified 20% disablement of the lower limb. In view of such fact, the Tribunal has arbitrarily considered Rs. 75/- pm as monthly loss of earning capacity for awarding Rs. 13,500/-. Thereby the Tribunal has considered 15 only as suitable multiplier. However, considering the different judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the earning capacity of child can also be considered as minimum Rs. 15,000/- pa and, therefore, even if 10% disability is considered, as taken by the Tribunal, and considering available evidence on record, the appellant is entitled to following amount towards just and fair compensation:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 22,500/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 20,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 7,000/- Towards rich/special diet Rs. 3,500/- Towards transportation charge Rs. 3,000/- Towards attendant charges Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs. 59,000/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 31,500/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 27,500/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. VI The Tribunal has awarded following amount to the appellant of First Appeal No. 817/1998:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 27,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 9,500/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 15,000/- Towards other expenditure Rs. 3,000/- Towards actual loss of income Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs. 55,500/- Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to consider that because of the injuries, the appellant lady has to undergo abortion of her pregnancy for which the Tribunal has, instead of awarding any amount, stated that pain, shock and suffering is awarded as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 7,500/- awarded to all other claimants, irrespective of nature of injuries and disablement. 55,500/- Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to consider that because of the injuries, the appellant lady has to undergo abortion of her pregnancy for which the Tribunal has, instead of awarding any amount, stated that pain, shock and suffering is awarded as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 7,500/- awarded to all other claimants, irrespective of nature of injuries and disablement. The victim was a housewife and, therefore, the Tribunal has considered Rs. 1,000/- pm as her earning capacity when she claimed that she was carrying out some tuition work also. Therefore, it is quite clear and obvious that the Tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation for abortion of pregnancy due to accidental injuries, so also proper amount for loss of earning capacity when the victim was carrying out some tuition work also in addition to her routine household work. In view of such fact, it would be proper to award following amount towards just and fair compensation to the appellant taking Rs. 2,000/- pm as prospective earning capacity, 20% disablement and 18 as suitable multiplier:- Towards loss of earning capacity Rs. 86,400/- Towards pain shock & suffering Rs. 25,000/- Towards abortion of pregnancy Rs. 50,000/- Towards medical & other expenses Rs. 15,000/- Towards rich/special diet Rs. 4,500/- Towards transportation charges Rs. 2,500/- Towards actual loss of income Rs. 4,000/- Total Rs. 1,87,400/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 55,500/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,31,900/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. VII The Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 62,800/- to the appellants of First Appeal No. 816/1998 being heirs of deceased victim Taraben Viththalbhai considering that being lady between age group of 52 and 55 years, her contribution to the family as housewife cannot be taken as more than Rs. 400/- and, therefore, considering Rs. 400/- as monthly dependency and applying 11 as multiplier plus Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate. Thereby the Tribunal has failed to award any amount to the husband for loss of consortium, so also for funeral expenses and other expenses and when the Tribunal has considered earning capacity of the housewife as Rs. 1,000/-, deducting Rs. 600/- towards personal expenses. Therefore, by all means there is a scope for enhancement of amount of compensation. Thereby the Tribunal has failed to award any amount to the husband for loss of consortium, so also for funeral expenses and other expenses and when the Tribunal has considered earning capacity of the housewife as Rs. 1,000/-, deducting Rs. 600/- towards personal expenses. Therefore, by all means there is a scope for enhancement of amount of compensation. Therefore, considering the fact that there are three claimants being husband, son and daughter of the deceased and considering the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding earning capacity of the housewife, when it can certainly be taken as Rs. 15,000/-, the normal deduction would be only 1/3rd and, therefore, the amount of compensation would be much more than what is claimed by the claimants, considering that even on head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, so also loss to estate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 1 lac on each head with Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, in case of death of the spouse, the compensation would certainly be more than Rs. 2 lacs; whereas the claimants have claimed only Rs. 2 lacs and, therefore, it would be appropriate to enhance the compensation from Rs. 62,800/- to Rs. 2 lacs on the following heads:- Towards loss of earning capacity considering Rs. 1,000/- p.m. as dependency and 11 as suitable multiplier Rs. 1,32,000/- Towards loss of consortium, love & affection, so also loss to estate Rs. 60,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 8,000/- Total Rs. 2,00,000/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 62,800/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to additional amount of Rs. 1,37,200/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon. VIII The Tribunal has also awarded the amount of Rs. 2,62,000/- to the appellants of First Appeal No. 818/1998 being heirs of deceased victim Gordhanbhai Bhailalbhai Patel. They include widow, minor sons and widow mother. The Tribunal has considered Rs. 2,000/- pm as earning capacity of the deceased and considering Rs. 1,400/- as loss of dependency and applying 15 as suitable multiplier, awarded Rs. 2,52,000/- for loss of dependency and Rs. 10,000/- for loss to estate. Here also the Tribunal has failed to consider evidence regarding earning capacity and earning of the deceased victim while taking only Rs. 2,000/- pm as earning capacity of the deceased and considering Rs. 1,400/- as loss of dependency and applying 15 as suitable multiplier, awarded Rs. 2,52,000/- for loss of dependency and Rs. 10,000/- for loss to estate. Here also the Tribunal has failed to consider evidence regarding earning capacity and earning of the deceased victim while taking only Rs. 2,000/- as his potential earning capacity without considering prospective income and, therefore, there is scope of enhancement of compensation, more particularly when the Tribunal has awarded only meagre amount towards the loss of estate and failed to award any amount for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Therefore, considering over-all evidence on record, even if we may not accept the total amount of Rs. 6,000/- as monthly earning capacity of the victim as claimed by the claimants from permanent job as well as from agricultural work, when widow has deposed that the victim was giving her Rs. 3,000/- pm for household expenditure, it can safely be considered that the victim must be earning more than Rs. 4,000/- pm and, therefore, his potential earning capacity can be considered as at least Rs. 5,000/- pm, out of which, if we deduct 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, then the monthly dependency of the claimants should be Rs. 3300/- and thereby, applying 15 as suitable multiplier, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to Rs. 5,94,000/- towards loss of income. So far as other heads viz., loss of estate as well as consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded Rs. 3,25,000/-, as discussed hereinabove, as cumulative amount for all such heads, therefore, it would be appropriate to award at least Rs. 50,000/- on each head of loss of consortium, love and affection and estate and thereby total Rs. 1,50,000/- plus Rs. 16,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thereby, the claimants/appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 7,60,000/- on the following heads:- Towards loss of income Rs. 5,94,000/- Toward loss of consortium, love & affection, so also loss to estate Rs. 1,50,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 16,000/- Total Rs. 7,60,000/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,62,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to additional amount of Rs. 4,98,000/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon." 9. 1,50,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs. 16,000/- Total Rs. 7,60,000/- As against the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,62,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to additional amount of Rs. 4,98,000/- with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim petition till realization with costs thereon." 9. In view of the above, all the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent, as indicated above. Award to be drawn up accordingly. R & P be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.