JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemant S. Shah for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the defendant – insurance company. 2. Appellants herein are original claimants being widow and minor children of the victim of road accident whereas defendants are driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in question. Since appeal is by claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation, factual details of incident and history of litigation is not much material. 3. However, it is to be recollected that one Nathubhai Bhavsanbhai Dayma met with a vehicular accident on 08.02.1992 when a truck No. DIG-7466 has dashed him on side of the road where he was standing, because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. In such incident victim was succumbed to his injuries. For which, his legal heirs have preferred Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 569 of 1992 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) of Ahmedabad (Rural). By judgment and order dated 14.10.1999, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,93,750/- with 12% interest and proportionate cost. The claimants are widow of the victim, so also widow mother and six minor children and one major daughter. To consider the quantum of compensation, that may be awarded to the victim, following details are relevant: Name of the victim Nathubhai Bhavsanbhai Dayma Result of the incident Fatal Age of the victim 38 years Earning activity Agriculturist holding 90 Bigha land and tractor in partnership Income of the victim Rs.45,000/- p.a. Marital status Married Claim Widow, 6 minor children, 1 major daughter and widow mother Quantum of compensation Rs.1,83,750 Loss of dependency considering Rs.12,250/- as yearly dependency and 15 and suitable multiplier. Thereby monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs.17,500/- only from agricultural work and no income was considered for owing tractor in partnership Plus: 10,000 towards loss of life expectancy Rs.1,83,750 Loss of dependency considering Rs.12,250/- as yearly dependency and 15 and suitable multiplier. Thereby monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs.17,500/- only from agricultural work and no income was considered for owing tractor in partnership Plus: 10,000 towards loss of life expectancy 4. Thereby monthly income of the deceased is considered as Rs.17,500/- only from agricultural work and no income was considered for owing tractor in partnership Plus: 10,000 towards loss of life expectancy 4. If we consider the rival submissions and settled legal position, and even if we rely upon the submission by the learned advocate for the appellant, the total amount of compensation would be around approximately Rs.7 Lacs, wherein minimum income and maximum deduction for personal expenses is taken into consideration. As against that, if we peruse the quantum of compensation awarded, which is listed herein above, at least for loss of life expectancy, meagre amount has been awarded i.e. Rs.10,000/- though the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in several cases awarded Rs.1 Lac towards loss of estate. 5. So far as deduction for personal expenses are concerned, it is settled legal position that there is no statutory provision or rule of thumb that how to calculate the dependency of victim, who died all of a sudden because of tortuous act of someone. Generally there are two principles based upon which different Courts have awarded compensation for decades together. (a) the unit method, where total number of family members and dependents are considered for deciding the quantum of compensation and; (b) to arrive at fixed amount of dependency and to calculate that which amount would be sufficient if invested in FDR to support the victim by getting interest on amount of compensation awarded towards such dependency. 6. Strictly speaking, these principles are practically interconnected and not alternative to each other, in as much as, the deduction of any percentage towards personal expenses as suggested by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India or any other Court in different judgments between 1/3rd for married person having widow and children and ½ for unmarried person when claimants are only parents, is practically guesswork; whereas unit theory has some logic and arithmetical calculation to decide actual dependency of such victim. The unit theory, which was followed for long time by all the Courts, is quite simple and clear wherein income of the victim is divided by total number of units, wherein two units are counted for major dependent and one unit is counted for minor dependent and thereafter, dependency is calculated considering the total income equals to total unit and thereafter, deducting the amount equal to two units as personal expenditure. There is logic in such system inasmuch as, if the family is bigger one, then, each family member must be getting benefit of victims earnings and therefore, it is unwarranted to deduct lump sum 1/3rd amount towards personal expenditure of the deceased victim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India discussed the unit method of calculation for compensation in the judgments of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. reported in (1996)4 SCC 362 , which is followed in several other cases, including Urmila Vs.Rashpal Kaur reported in (2011)15 SCC 291 . In the present case, there are as many as 7 minor children of the victim and therefore, as per unit method, the total income of the victim is to be considered as 2 (+) 2 unit for victim and his wife, now widow (+) 7 units for children, thereby, total 11 units and therefore, the total income of the victim is to be divided into 11 units out of which, for his personal expenditure, amount equals to two units can be deducted. Thereby, two units out of 11 units would be equal to 18% of the income of the deceased and to that extent, the deduction of only 10% by the Tribunal is certainly improper. However, if we consider the overall circumstances, such difference would be almost approximately Rs.1 Lac. As against that, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards actual medical expenses though bills of Rs.24,450/- are produced on record at Exh.26 and meagre amount is awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering, so also for loss of estate. Therefore, on one hand, if we reduce Rs.1 Lac from the award and then on other hand, if we award just and fair compensation towards loss of estate relying upon different decisions of the Honble Supreme Court of India and add compensation for medical expenses when bills of Rs.24,450/- are already proved on record, need to interfere with in impugned award. 7. 7. So far as issue regarding awarding more compensation than claimed is concerned, the fact remains that practically, Motor Vehicle Act, now makes it clear that in fact there is no need for the claimant to file a separate application, but he has to simply furnish the information as per the prescribed form, otherwise, the Tribunal is empowered to award just and fair compensation based upon the information received as per Form No.54 prescribed under the Rules and therefore, there is no substance in such submission that there cannot be more award than actual claim, more particularly in such cases of compensation where claimants are not litigants in its true sense, but they are victim of mishap and some time they do not have proper wisdom to evaluate their injuries and damages. Otherwise also, there are several judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, which confirms that Tribunal is empowered to award more compensation than claimed. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgments rendered by Honble Supreme Court of India in – (1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 ; (2) Raj Rani & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. reported in (2009)13 SCC 654 ; (3) Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3056 ; (4) Ibrahim Vs.Raju reported in AIR 2012 SC 534 ; (5) Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha reported in (2014)1 SCC 384 . Paragraph 21 from Ibrahim Vs. Raju reported in AIR 2012 SC 534 is relevant, which reads as under:- 21. We are conscious of the fact that in the petition filed by him, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.3 lacs only with interest and cost. It will be reasonable to presume that due to financial incapacity the appellant and his family could not avail the services of a competent lawyer and make a claim for adequate compensation. However, as the Tribunal and the High Court and for that reason this Court are duty bound to award just compensation, we deem it proper to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,89,440/- to Rs.6 lacs. This approach is in tune with the judgment in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 : ( AIR 2003 SC 674 : 2002 AIR SCW 5348). This approach is in tune with the judgment in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 : ( AIR 2003 SC 674 : 2002 AIR SCW 5348). In that case, the Court considered a similar issue, referred to the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Kisan Gangaram Hire 1987 ACJ 311 (Bombay), Orissa High Court in Mulla Mod. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim 1994 ACJ 348 (Orissa) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana 1995 ACJ 1288 (Pandh) and observed: "For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award "just" compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub- section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub- section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition." 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.3,750/- 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. 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 Honble 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. It cannot be ignored that the Tribunal has not taken care of all relevant evidence and factual details available on record and that the victim was a young man and therefore, they had ample opportunity to earn more and to help their relatives being claimants herein. It is also clear that an unhappy early death certainly results into set-back in the life of parents and widow of the victim and his children therefore, they are also entitled to reasonable amount of compensation on all such counts which otherwise cannot be quantified or compensated in terms of money. 10. The law is now well settled on such issues and therefore, it would not be appropriate and required to recollect and reproduce all decisions on such count. 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 11. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2260 11. 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: 11.1 Considering the age and land owned by the victim so also evidence regarding tractor in partnership, practically claimants are very reasonable in claiming that deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per annum. If we consider the devaluation of money and inflammation and consumer prize index, practically in case of death we are suppose to pay just and reasonable amount since we cannot replace a human being. If we consider purchase value of the money it is found that in the year 1980 when 10 gm gold can be purchased at the cost of Rs.300/- , the same 10 gm gold is of Rs.30,000/- today. Thereby, during last 35 years the value of money has been reduced by 100 times. Therefore, for the amount which is payable to the claimants in the year 1992, if not paid immediately or at the earliest but paid almost after 10 years then figure or amount needs to be increased by 30%. Therefore, even if we did not consider rise in awarding compensation because devaluation of money, it would be in appropriate to reduce the amount of compensation by reducing earnings, more particularly when claimants are quite reasonable in claiming that a person having 90 Bigha land and tractor is earning Rs.45,000/- per annum. Even if we consider Rs.45,000/- as prospective income, at the relevant time then considering 3 major and 6 minor members of the family, the personal expenses of the deceased would be Rs.7500/- and, therefore, yearly dependency of the claimants would be Rs.37,500/-, considering the age of the deceased though multiplier of 16 can be selected even if we continue the same multiplier, as taken by the tribunal i.e. 15 then claimants are entitled to Rs.5,62,500/- towards loss of dependency. 11.2 Then claimants are also entitled to just and reasonable amount under different heads vize., Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.12,500/- towards funeral expenses. 11.3 Therefore, claimants are entitled to Rs.7,25,000/- as total amount of compensation, instead of Rs.1,93,750/- as awarded by the tribunal. If such amount is deposited then, claimant is entitled to additional Rs.5,31,250/-. 14. 11.3 Therefore, claimants are entitled to Rs.7,25,000/- as total amount of compensation, instead of Rs.1,93,750/- as awarded by the tribunal. If such amount is deposited then, claimant is entitled to additional Rs.5,31,250/-. 14. 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.7,25,000/- with 12% interest and cost. If defendants have already paid an amount of compensation as per impugned award, then they are liable to pay only difference to the claimants. 15. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Record and Proceedings be sent back forthwith.