JUDGMENT : Z.K. SAIYED, J. The original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 12.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & Fast Track Court No. 11, Morbi in MACP No. 194 of 1998. 2. The original claimants have preferred the present appeal, inter - alia, contending that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,32,000/- for the death of deceased Raghubhai @ Raghavjibhai is on very lower side; that the Tribunal while considering the claim petition has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000/- per annum (Rs. 1,500/- per month) is very meager estimation so far as the deceased occupation even considering the household work. That the learned Tribunal has lost sight while awarding the compensation and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be termed to be a just compensation and ultimately the appellants have prayed to enhance the compensation. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: 3.1 It is the case of the petitioners that on 25.08.1995, deceased Raghubhai @ Raghvajibhai was travelling in a Tractor No. GAH-7446 and Trailor No. GRP-9593 as a Labourer. Brother of the deceased i.e. Mahadevbhai was driving the said tractor-trailor and deceased was sitting in a trailor and they were going from Harbatiyali to Jivapar and when they reached Harbatiyali-Jivapar at about 4:30 p.m at that time, one tanker bearing registration No. GTW-9000 came there with excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Tractor-Trailor, as a result of which deceased Raghubhai @ Raghavjibhai has sustained grievous bodily injuries and he was immediately shifted to the Virani Hospital at Rajkot and ultimately during the course of treatment he died. While the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Raghubhai @ Raghavjibhai have come with a case that said deceased Raghubhai @ Raghavjibhai was 28 years old on the date of the accident and he was earning amounting to Rs. 3,000/- per month by way of labour work. It is stated by the petitioners that they have suffered great mental pain shock and suffering due to the accidental death of the deceased. It is stated by the petitioners that they are dependents and heirs and legal representative of the said deceased. It is stated by the petitioners that they have incurred huge amount towards the funeral charges, religious ceremony etc. It is stated by the petitioners that they are dependents and heirs and legal representative of the said deceased. It is stated by the petitioners that they have incurred huge amount towards the funeral charges, religious ceremony etc. Thus, the petitioners in claim petition No. 194 of 2008 have claimed amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- under the various heads from the present opponents. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pankaj R. Desai for the appellants and Mr. Shashikant Gade for the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company. Learned advocate Mr. Shashikant Gade has argued that the Tribunal has passed the order in accordance with the evidence on record and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for by this Court. 5. The claimants have questioned the quantum of compensation and therefore this Court has considered that aspect only. 6. The claimants have averred that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident but the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the age of deceased Raghubhai @ Raghavjibhai but the same is mentioned in the P.M Report at Exh.29 to be 30 years. In this view of the matter, the age of the deceased is believed to be 28 years. Consequently therefore the deceased was falling in the age group of 25 to 30 years. 7. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased Raghubhai @ Raghavjibhai was used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month by engaging himself in agricultural work as well as household work but the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has presumed his income to be Rs. 1,500/- per month. The presumption on the part of the learned Tribunal also appears to be unfounded as considering the income of 2001 under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, even the income of unskilled labour was considered to be Rs. 2,500/- per month. As the deceased was engaged himself in agricultural operation as well as he was also carrying out household activity and therefore his income could have been believed to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. As the deceased was falling in advanced age nearly 28 years, prospective rise is required to be considered as urged by the learned counsel for the insurance company. 8. 3,000/- per month. As the deceased was falling in advanced age nearly 28 years, prospective rise is required to be considered as urged by the learned counsel for the insurance company. 8. As there ere three claimants, 1/3rd amount is required to be deducted for the expenses he would have incurred for his personal and living expenses if he had been alive then the amount comes to Rs. 4500/- per month for future loss of income. As the deceased was aged about 28 years, consequently therefor in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], 17 multiplier is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that view of the matter, if we may calculate the compensation then Rs. 3,000/- per month × 12 × 17 = Rs. 6,12,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses, then the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6,37,000/-. Hence, the total amount comes to Rs. 6,37,000/-, out of which Rs. 2,32,000/- which is already deposited before the learned Tribunal Morbi, is required to be deducted and Rs. 4,05,000/- is required to be paid to the claimants. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and award dated 12.07.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) & Fast Track Court No. 11, Morbi in MACP No. 194 of 1998 granting the compensation of Rs. 2,32,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 6,37,000/- with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Accordingly, present First Appeal is partly allowed. The respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the deficit amount of compensation within the period of three months. On being deposited the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse its own discretion to the claimant. The appellants are directed to deposit the deficit court fees within the period of 10 days from today before the Registry. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.