JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 27th December, 2014 made in MVC No. 477/2013 on the file of the II Addl. MACT and Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at Bhalki, ('MACT' for short) granting compensation of Rs. 9,44,000/- with 6% interest per annum, from the date of the petition till realization. 2. The appellants who are the claimants before the MACT filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 30,69,000/-, contending that on 30.04.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., while the deceased was just in front of his house with his TVS XL motor cycle talking to his friend, at that time, the rider of the offending Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-38/J-4244 came in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed against the deceased's motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and suffered fatal injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhalki, where he was provided preliminary treatment, then he was referred to District Hospital, Bidar, and from there, he was shifted to Prayavi Hospital, Bidar, where he took treatment for four days and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 03.05.2013. The jurisdictional police registered a criminal case against the rider of the Hero Honda motor cycle under Sections 279, 337, 338, IPC r/w Section 187 of M-V. Act and after the death of the injured, Section 340-A IPC was added. 3. It is contended that the deceased was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy and was a cobbler (shoe maker) by profession earning Rs. 13,500/- per month. On account of the untimely death, the claimants have lost the love and affection, besides loss to estate and huge amount was spent towards medical treatment, etc., therefore, sought for compensation. 4. On service of notice, respondents appeared through the counsel and filed objections. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age, profession and income of the deceased and contended that petitioners 2 and 3 are not minors, they have attained majority turd hence not dependent on the deceased. 4. On service of notice, respondents appeared through the counsel and filed objections. The respondents denied the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age, profession and income of the deceased and contended that petitioners 2 and 3 are not minors, they have attained majority turd hence not dependent on the deceased. It was also contended that as per the voter's ID, the deceased was aged 58 years and not 35 years, and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the MACT framed the following issues : (i) "Whether the claimants prove that deceased Ram, s/o Venkatrao Gayakwad (Samgar) died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.04.2013 at about 4.30 p.m. near Bhalki Railway Station near claimant house that has caused on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle Hero Honda hearing registration No. KA-38/J-4244 by its rider? (ii) Whether the claimants entitled for the compensation? To what extent and from whom? (iii) What order?" 6. In order to substantiate the claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.P. 1 to P. 12. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. 7. Alter considering the entire material on record and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the MACT recorded a finding that claimants proved that the deceased Ram, s/o Venkatrao Gayakwad (Samgar) died due to the accident that occurred on 30.04.2013 at about 4.30 p.m. on account of rash and negligent riding of the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-38/J-4244 and the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 9,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence the present appeal is filed by the claimants for further enhancement of compensation. 8. The insurance company has not filed any appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the MACT. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. 9,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence the present appeal is filed by the claimants for further enhancement of compensation. 8. The insurance company has not filed any appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the MACT. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri Santosh Biradar, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants vehemently contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT taking into consideration the income of the deceased at 76,750/- is on the lower side and contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.4/inquest report which clearly indicates the profession of the deceased as cobbler (shoe maker) and further contended that the compensation awarded under conventional heads are on lower side and also contended that the MACT has erred in deducting ?rd instead of the, contrary to the dictum of the Supreme Court. Therefore, he sought to further enhance the compensation by allowing this appeal. 11. Per contra, Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT. Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company, while justifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT, contended that the claimants have not produced any material documents to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 13,500/- per month and in the absence of any material documents, the MACT is justified in taking income of the deceased at Rs. 6,750/- per month. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is, "Whether the claimants have made out a case for modification of the impugned judgment and award of the MACT for further enhancement?" 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 14. It is undisputed fact that the accident occurred on 30.04.2013 and subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 03.05.2013. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged 35 years and was working as a cobbler (shoe maker) as can be seen from the inquest report/Ex.P.4. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased has stated on oath that her husband/deceased was earning Rs. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged 35 years and was working as a cobbler (shoe maker) as can be seen from the inquest report/Ex.P.4. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased has stated on oath that her husband/deceased was earning Rs. 13,500/- per month. Though no material document is produced to substantiate the income, the fact remains that the deceased was a cobbler. 15. Taking into consideration the admitted profession which is supported by Ex.P.4 and the statement made by P.W.1, in the absence of contrary material produced by the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that income of the deceased could be taken at Rs. 8,500/- per month. Having regard to the dictum of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ), the deduction should be the and not ?rd, since the deceased left behind a wife and three sons. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged 35 years as could be seen from the post-mortem report/Ex.P.8. 16. Thus, taking income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/-, applying the multiplier 16 as applicable to the age 35 of the deceased and deducting the towards personal expenses, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 12,24,000/- towards loss of dependency. (Rs. 8,500/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 16,32,000 - Rs. 4,08,000/- = Rs. 12,24,000/-) 17. The MACT while granting compensation under conventional heads, has awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards loss to estate, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium for 1st petitioner which is contrary to the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others v. Kishore Dan and others, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3830 , paras 29 to 34) which reads thus : 32. Admittedly, the date of birth of deceased Sajjan Singh being 1-2-1968; the submission that he would have continued in service up to 1-2-2026, if 58 years is the age of retirement or 1-2-2028, if 60 years is the age of retirement is accepted. He was only 28 years 7 months old at the time of death. Admittedly, the date of birth of deceased Sajjan Singh being 1-2-1968; the submission that he would have continued in service up to 1-2-2026, if 58 years is the age of retirement or 1-2-2028, if 60 years is the age of retirement is accepted. He was only 28 years 7 months old at the time of death. In normal course, he would have served the State Government minimum for about 30 years. Even if we do not take into consideration the future prospect of promotion to which the deceased was otherwise entitled and the actual pay revisions taken effect from 1-1-1996 and 1-1-2006, it cannot be denied that the pay of the deceased would have doubled if he would have continued in services of the State till the date of retirement. Hence, this was a fit case in which 100% increase in future income of the deceased should have been allowed by the Tribunal and High Court, which they failed to do. 33. Having regard to the fact and evidence on record, we estimate the monthly income of deceased Sajjan Singh at Rs. 9000 x 2 - Rs. 18,000 per month. From this his personal living expenses, which should be ?rd, there being three dependants has to be deducted. Thereby, the "actual salary" will come to Rs. 18,000 - Rs. 6000 = Rs. 12,000 per month or Rs. 12,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,44,000 per annum. As the deceased was 28 years old at the time of death the multiplier of 17 is applied, which is appropriate to the age of the deceased. The normal compensation would then work out to be Rs. 1,44,000 x 17 = Rs. 24,48,000 to which we add the usual award for loss of consortium and loss of the estate by providing a conventional sum of Rs. 1,00,000; loss of love and affection for the daughter Rs. 2.00.000, loss of love and affection for the widow and the mother at Rs. 1,00,000 each i.e. Rs. 2,00,000 and funeral expenses of Rs. 25.000. 34. Thus, according to us, in all a sum of Rs. 29,73,000 would be a fair, just and reasonable award in the circumstances of this case. 35. The rate of interest of 12% is allowed from the date of the petition filed before the Tribunal till payment is made. 36. 2,00,000 and funeral expenses of Rs. 25.000. 34. Thus, according to us, in all a sum of Rs. 29,73,000 would be a fair, just and reasonable award in the circumstances of this case. 35. The rate of interest of 12% is allowed from the date of the petition filed before the Tribunal till payment is made. 36. Respondent 3 is directed to pay the total award with interest (minus the amount if already paid) within three months. Appellant 2 daughter who was aged about 2 years at the time of 'accident of the deceased has already attained majority; money may be required for her education and marriage. In the circumstances, we direct Respondent 3 to deposit 25% of the due amount in the account of Appellant 1, the wife. Out of the rest 75% of the due amount, 35% of the amount be invested in a nationalised bank by fixed deposit for a period of one year in the name of the daughter, Appellant 2. Out of the rest 40% of the due amount, 20% each be invested in a nationalised bank by fixed deposit for a period of one year in the name of Appellants 1 and 3, the wife and the mother respectively. 37. The award passed by the Tribunal dated 21-06-2003 and judgment dated 29-07-2011 of the Rajasthan High Court stand modified to the extent above. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. No separate order as to costs. 18. After considering the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the material documents Exs. P.1 to 12 and taking into consideration the dictum of the Supreme Court stated supra, after re-assessing the entire material on record, the claimants/appellants are entitled to compensation as under : Towards loss of dependency Rs. 12,24,000/- Towards loss to estate Rs. 50,000/- Towards love and affection to claimants 1 to 4 Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards loss of consortium to the widow Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards transportation of dead body, funeral expenses and medical expenses Rs. 35,000/- TOTAL Rs. 15,09,000/- Thus, claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,09,000/- as against Rs. 9,40,000/- awarded by the MACT. 19. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment-award dated 27th December, 2014 made in M.V.C. No. 477/2013 on the file of the II Addl. MACT and Addl. 35,000/- TOTAL Rs. 15,09,000/- Thus, claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,09,000/- as against Rs. 9,40,000/- awarded by the MACT. 19. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment-award dated 27th December, 2014 made in M.V.C. No. 477/2013 on the file of the II Addl. MACT and Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, sitting at Bhalki, is modified and the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,09,000/- as against Rs. 9,40,000/- awarded by the MACT and the enhanced compensation would be Rs. 5,65,000/-. The claimants are entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition till realization. 20. The 2ml respondent/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and the same shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today. The apportionment of the compensation shall be made to the claimants in terms of the judgment and award passed by the MACT.