JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. These three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as selfsame judgment and award dated 16.08.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (A) F.T.C. 6, Bharuch as under challenge. 2. The brief conspectus of facts giving rise to these appeals is that the deceased-Govindbhai Devjibhai Thumar (Patel), deceased-Premben Devjibhai Thumar (Patel), and deceased-Vimlaben Govindbhai Thumar (Patel) were travelling in Ambassador Car bearing registration No. GJ-3C-8823, and were coming to Jamnagar from Surat on 8.2.1992, and deceased-Govindbhai Devjibhai Thumar was driving the car. When the car reached near Saurashtra Hotel, on National Highway No. 8 a truck bearing registration No. GRU-3396 came at a very high and excessive speed from the opposite direction and dashed with the Ambassador car. In the said accident, Govindbhai Devjibhai Thumar, Premben Devjibhai Thumar lost their lives, while Vimlaben Govindbhai Thumar suffered serious bodily injuries. The Claim Petition No. 568 of 1992 was filed by the legal heirs of Govindbhai Devjibhai Thumar for claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, while, M.A.C.P. No. 569 of 1992 was filed by the legal heirs of deceased- Premben Devjibhai Thumar claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Vimlaben Govindbhai Thumar filed Claim Petition No. 571 of 1992 claiming Rs. 70,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her as also for pain and shock suffered by her due to the injuries which she had received in the accident. 3. As far as First Appeal No. 964 of 2005 is concerned, the Tribunal by judgment and award dated 16.08.2004 awarded following compensation:- Rs. 3,57,000/- Future loss of income Rs. 10,000/ Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Conventional amount Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expences. Rs. 5,000/- Transportation expences. Rs. 3,87,000/- Total 4. The appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation and preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 5. I have heard Mr. Rajan Shah, learned advocate for Mr. B.D. Karia, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. V.C. Thamas, learned advocate for Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service of notice. 6. Perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd over personal expenses instead of 1/4th as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service of notice. 6. Perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd over personal expenses instead of 1/4th as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). It is contended by learned advocate for the appellants that in Appeal No. 964 of 2005, the Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased on a very lower side though the appellants had produced the evidence in the form of Income Tax Returns of the deceased. It is his further contention that the deceased was aged around 51 years at the time of accident, and therefore, as per the proposition laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier of 11. He, further submits that the amount under the head of loss of consortium and convention amount is also on lower side, and therefore, he has urged that the compensation may be enhanced so far as the First Appeal No. 965 of 2005 is concerned. 7. It is the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the deceased was looking after agricultural land, and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income of 15,000/- per annum instead of assessing income of Rs. 20,000/-, and hence, he has urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be accordingly enhanced. 8. As far as the Appeal No. 965 of 2005 is concerned, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of earning, and therefore, the compensation needs to be enhanced. 9. Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the Appeals are without merits. So far as the Appeal No. 964 of 2005 is concerned, except enhancing the multiplier from 10 to 11 as per the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), no enhancement in compensation is warranted. He submits that except the Income Tax Returns no contemporaneous evidence as to the income of the deceased was produced by the appellants to indicate that the deceased was earning sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum. He submits that except the Income Tax Returns no contemporaneous evidence as to the income of the deceased was produced by the appellants to indicate that the deceased was earning sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum. It is his further contention that looking to the year of accident, the amount awarded under the head of loss of compensation and convention amount is also just and proper. He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be dismissed. 10. It is his contention in Appeal No. 965 of 2005, the deceased was home maker and the appellants did not produce any evidence to show that the deceased was having any agricultural land and she was earning. He, therefore, submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income, and therefore, the award does not warrant any interference. 11. He further submits that the appellant of Appeal No. 966 of 2005 had claimed only reimbursement of medical expenses which she had spent for the treatment, and therefore, the Tribunal has awarded the actual medical expenses and a further sum under the head of pain, shock and suffering and hospital expenditures for the period of hospitalization and transportation. According to his submission, all the appeals are without merit and need to be dismissed. 12. In Appeal No. 964 of 2005, the claimants are the legal heirs and representative of the deceased Govindbhai Thumar, there is no dispute about his age i.e. 51 years at the time of accident as the date of his birth was 18.10.1941. The contention of learned advocate for the appellant is that the deceased was earning sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- per annum from multiple business activities. The appellant No. 1 who is the wife of the deceased has stated in her oral evidence that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of dependency on the basis of last income, but substantiate the say that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,25,000/-. The appellants have produced his Income Tax Returns in the year 1986-87 and fact Exhibit-53 and from 01.07.1987 to 31.03.1989 (21 months) (Rs. 1,9,863/-) at Exhibit-58 the Tribunal has also considered Exhibit 61 accounts for the year 1991. 13. Considering the Exhibit-53, 58 and 61, the Tribunal has taken Rs. 1,25,000/-. The appellants have produced his Income Tax Returns in the year 1986-87 and fact Exhibit-53 and from 01.07.1987 to 31.03.1989 (21 months) (Rs. 1,9,863/-) at Exhibit-58 the Tribunal has also considered Exhibit 61 accounts for the year 1991. 13. Considering the Exhibit-53, 58 and 61, the Tribunal has taken Rs. 53,576/- as average income of last three years and has adopted multiplier of 10, as the deceased was 51 year of age, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd amount from the average annual income of Rs. 53,576/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has laid down a proposition of law that when the deceased left behind the dependents and where the family members depending upon the deceased are between 2 to 3, 1/4th amount should be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. I am, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd amount as personal and living expenses. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th amount under this head and accordingly, the dependency of the appellants would come to amount which should be it is require to be multiplier of 11 instead of 10 as per the proposition of Sarla Verma (supra) case, and therefore, the dependency would come to Rs. 4,42,002/- rounded off to Rs. 4,42,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- as conventional amount. I am of the view that the Tribunal has adopted a very frugal approach in awarding compensation under these two heads. The appellant No. 2 is the wife of the deceased who lost her husband when she needed his company in approaching lean years of life whereas appellant No. 2 to 4 lost their father when they were relatively young and needed guidance of their father, and therefore, I am of the view that the compensation under these two heads has to be enhanced appropriately. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each under these two heads, instead of Rs. 10,000/- each would sub-serve the ends of justice, and therefore, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be revised and enhanced as under:- Future loss of income Rs. 4,42,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 25,000/- Convention amount Rs. 25,000/- each under these two heads, instead of Rs. 10,000/- each would sub-serve the ends of justice, and therefore, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be revised and enhanced as under:- Future loss of income Rs. 4,42,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 25,000/- Convention amount Rs. 25,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000/- Total 5,02,000/- 15. As against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,87,000/-. Thus, the appellants of First Appeal No. 964 of 2005 are entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/-. 16. So far as the Appeal No. 965 of 2005 is concerned, I am unable to accept the submissions advanced by learned advocate for the appellant that the Tribunal had adopted most unreasonable approach. The object of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicle Acts is to see that reasonable compensation is awarded to the victim or the heirs of the victim. Such compensation should not be a windfall gain or bonanza for the claimants. It is undisputed that the deceased was aged around 75 years at the time of accident. She had no income of her own though the claimant had sought to project that she was contributing to the family income by looking after the agricultural land. The appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the family had any agricultural land or that the deceased was holding agricultural land in her name. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable where does not warrant any interference in the appeal. 17. So far as the Appeal No. 965 of 2005 is concerned, on perusal of the record shows that the appellant had claimed reimbursement of the medical expenses she had incurred for her medical treatment of the injuries she had suffered in the accident. The Tribunal had awarded the actual medical bills coupled with the compensation under the head of pain shock and suffering in hospital for 20 days. The Medical Certificate of the appellant does not show any fracture. In fact she had suffered superficial injury in the form of abrasion and tenderness. I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the appellant, which does not require any upward interference in this appeal. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal No. 964 of 2005 succeeds in part. In fact she had suffered superficial injury in the form of abrasion and tenderness. I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the appellant, which does not require any upward interference in this appeal. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal No. 964 of 2005 succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified and the appellants are held entitle to enhancement of Rs. 1,15,000/- with 9% interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the claim petition till realization. No costs. 19. Appeal No. 965 of 2005 and 966 of 2005 are hereby dismissed. The Registry is directed to transmit R&P to the Tribunal forthwith. It is hoped that the insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in the Tribunal as expeditious as possible.