JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J.(Oral) - This appeal has been preferred by the original claimants against the judgment and award dated 27.12.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 529 of 2004, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,51,000/. 2. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant original claimants have, inter alia, contended that the learned Tribunal has notionally considered the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,200/per month whereas as per the salary certificate at Exh:24, the deceased used to earn Rs. 2,500/per month, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not properly awarded the amount of compensation to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has adopted a very conservative view while assessing the income of the deceased. It is therefore, requested to enhance the amount of compensation. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.4.2004 in the morning, deceased Thakor Kaduji Rawaji was riding bicycle and was going towards Rajkamal Petrol Pump and at that time, the opponent No. 1 came by driving truck bearing registration No.HR37B6145 at an excessive speed, rashly and negligently and dashed with the deceased who was riding bicycle and caused accident as a result of which deceased sustained grievous injuries and ultimately, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. 4. Heard Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the appellants has reiterated the grounds mentioned in the appeal and thus contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded compensation which is on lower side. He has further argued that the learned Tribunal has adopted a very conservative view while assessing the income of the deceased. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on the record. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on the record. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that only point of quantum of compensation is required to be determined in this appeal and therefore, this Court has concentrated on the point of quantum of compensation only. 8. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, there appears no dispute that the age of the deceased has been rightly established by the Tribunal to be of 35 years, therefore, he was falling in the age group of 35 to 40 years and for such age group 16 multiplicand would be applicable 9. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have averred that deceased was engaged in printing press business and used to draw salary of Rs. 2,500/per month and as well as he also used to earn Rs. 500/from plying rickshaw. However, the evidence regarding his occupation of printing press and plying rickshaw has not been produced on record. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has presumed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1200/per month. However, the learned advocate for the appellants has contended that in absence of any other evidence on record, the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time was required to be considered at least. Taking into consideration the minimum wages of skilled worker in the year 2004, in the State of Gujarat which is prescribed at Rs. 1200/per month. However, the learned advocate for the appellants has contended that in absence of any other evidence on record, the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time was required to be considered at least. Taking into consideration the minimum wages of skilled worker in the year 2004, in the State of Gujarat which is prescribed at Rs. 2300/per month and considering the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savita v. Bindar Singh and Others, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 505 that if the claimant failed to adduce documentary evidence to prove concrete income, in such case, 30% increase for future prospect is required to be adopted for arriving at the income of the deceased as such. 10. Taking into consideration the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid case, 30% rise is required to be added therein, then his income along with future rise of income comes to Rs. (2300+690)=Rs.2990/. Now, as the claimants are six in number therefore, in view of guidelines laid down in decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , th is required to be deducted for personal and living expenses, if had he been alive. If we deduct th i.e. (2990748) it comes to Rs. 2242/rounding off to Rs. 2240/. If we may multiply by 16, as the deceased was aged about 35 years, as per Sarla Verma case (supra), the multiplier of 16 years could be applicable therefore it comes to Rs. (2240x12,16)=Rs.4,30,080/. The claimants are also entitled to receive Rs. 55,000/under the conventional head such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. Therefore, the total amount of compensation come to Rs. 4,85,080/( Rs. 4,30,080+Rs.55,000). 11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby modified and the amount of compensation awarded Rs. 2,51,000/is enhanced to Rs. 4,85,080/with an interest and costs at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 4,30,080+Rs.55,000). 11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby modified and the amount of compensation awarded Rs. 2,51,000/is enhanced to Rs. 4,85,080/with an interest and costs at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The enhanced amount of compensation with interest from the date of application till realization to be deposited by the respondents with the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of this order and on such deposit, the same shall be paid to the original claimants by account payee cheque on proper identification and verification. Present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the R & P, if any, forthwith to the learned Tribunal.