JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N. Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. L. H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A.H. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1. 3. This appeal has been filed by the appellants who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (the Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 33/2014. 4. The deceased Smt. Lalduhawmi of Kolasib Vengthar on the night of 24.03.2014 was hit by a truck bearing registration No. MZ05/6247 belonging to the respondent No. 1. As a result, Smt. Lalduhawmi expired on the spot. The offending vehicle was insured under the respondent No. 2 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 5. The appellant No. 1 is the disabled sister of the deceased whereas the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased. The learned Tribunal disposed of the claim of the appellants vide its Judgment and Award dated 1.7.2016 by awarding the appellants a sum of Rs. 5,93,000/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety three thousand) only with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 19.06.2014. Being aggrieved with the judgment and award for being insufficient, the claimants are before this Court as appellants. 6. The ground for challenge of the impugned judgment and award by the appellants briefly is with regard to the monthly income of the deceased which was taken as Rs. 3000/- on notional basis while the monthly earning of the deceased according to the appellants was a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. Further, the appellants contend that the learned Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of estate, loss of expectation of life and wrongly deducted ?rd of the income of the deceased while the learned Tribunal should have only deducted ¼th of the income of the deceased. Besides the above grounds, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of the Rs. 25,000/- awarded for the same. 7. The learned senior counsel Mr. L.H. Lianhrima submits that to establish and prove the fact that the deceased person had a monthly earning of Rs. 12,000/-, the appellants examined as many as four witnesses. 50,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of the Rs. 25,000/- awarded for the same. 7. The learned senior counsel Mr. L.H. Lianhrima submits that to establish and prove the fact that the deceased person had a monthly earning of Rs. 12,000/-, the appellants examined as many as four witnesses. The four witnesses namely, Smt. V.L. Mawii, Smt. Lalziki, Smt. I. Maichami and Smt. Lalchhuanawmi who are engaged in selling vegetables had clearly testified that the deceased as vegetable whole seller was earning not less than Rs. 12,000/- per month. In fact, the deceased herself had informed them about her monthly earnings as they used to procure the vegetables from the deceased for selling. The learned senior counsel submits that the statements made by the four witnesses having not been rebutted or falsified by the respondent No. 2 in any manner, the learned Tribunal ought to have accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000/- per month for calculating the ultimate compensation to be awarded to the appellants. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 13 SCC 236 , wherein it was observed that if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. He, therefore, submits that the deceased as a seller of vegetables on wholesale basis was earning a monthly income of Rs. 12,000/- per month and even if the same was found to be exorbitant by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal ought to have resorted to some guesswork upon considering the evidence led by the appellants instead of restricting the monthly income of the deceased only to a meagre notional income of Rs. 3000/- per month. 8. The learned senior counsel further submits that as per the notification issued by the State Government in the Labour, Employment and Industrial Training Department on 8.4.2016, an unskilled worker is entitled to a minimum wage @ Rs. 270/- per day and by accounting the monthly income of such unskilled worker, the same would be about Rs. 8100/- a month. 8. The learned senior counsel further submits that as per the notification issued by the State Government in the Labour, Employment and Industrial Training Department on 8.4.2016, an unskilled worker is entitled to a minimum wage @ Rs. 270/- per day and by accounting the monthly income of such unskilled worker, the same would be about Rs. 8100/- a month. He submits that although a vegetable seller on wholesale basis may not be directly comparable to an unskilled worker but never the less, the deceased by selling vegetables on wholesale cannot be assumed to have earned only Rs. 3000/- a month. 9. As regard to the deduction of ?rd made by the learned Tribunal towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the learned senior counsel submits that the same is not in conformity with the latest law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has held that when the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deduction to be made should be ¼th as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the deduction of the learned Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as ?rd has to be interfered with. 10. The learned senior counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal failed to award the appellants any compensation towards loss of estate and towards loss of expectation of life of the deceased. At the same time, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is insufficient. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Kalpanaraj and Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764 , wherein a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses while a sum of Rs. 100,000/- each was awarded towards loss of estate and for loss of expectation of life of the deceased. He therefore submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal should accordingly be enhanced. 11. Lastly, in support of the un-rebuttal evidence adduced by the witnesses for the claimants, the learned senior counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 . 12. 11. Lastly, in support of the un-rebuttal evidence adduced by the witnesses for the claimants, the learned senior counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another v. Lala and Others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 . 12. Appearing for the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (the respondent No. 2), the learned counsel Mr. A.H. Barbhuiya submits that the evidence led by the appellants towards the income of the deceased cannot be relied upon inasmuch as the witnesses who were engaged in the business of selling vegetables were not only known to the deceased but they were working under the deceased as they procured their vegetables from the deceased. He, therefore, submits that such witnesses would naturally support case of the appellants as they are in the same profession as the deceased. 13. The learned counsel Mr. A.H. Barbhuiya also submits that the fact that the deceased looked after her disabled sister i.e. the appellant No. 1 is not borne out of the evidence of the appellants. He submits that the disabled sister was also not produced to testify before the learned Tribunal. 14. To this submission, the learned senior counsel for the appellants refers to the deposition of the brother of the deceased i.e. Sh. R. Lalawmpuia, who had categorically stated that his deceased sister was the only breadwinner of the family looking after her three children and her disabled sister (the appellant No. 1) by selling vegetables on wholesale basis after she lost her husband. 15. The learned counsel Mr. A.H. Barbhuiya, lastly submits that the various decisions of the Apex Court cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellants cannot be just applied to the instant case inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the instant case would surely defer from those in the cited decisions. He thus submits that the learned Tribunal had awarded adequate and just compensation to the appellants and the impugned judgment and award requires no enhancement. 16. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have carefully perused the materials available on record. 17. The appellants led their evidence before the learned Tribunal on the income of the deceased by producing as many as four witnesses who have deposed on oath that the deceased was earning at least Rs. 12,000/- per month by selling vegetables on wholesale basis. 17. The appellants led their evidence before the learned Tribunal on the income of the deceased by producing as many as four witnesses who have deposed on oath that the deceased was earning at least Rs. 12,000/- per month by selling vegetables on wholesale basis. It may be seen that the said four witnesses are vegetable seller themselves and they would surely be aware as to what would be the likely income of a vegetable sellers or a wholesaler. Besides this, in the cross examination of these four witnesses, the respondent No. 2 has failed to rebut and shake the evidence led in the examination-in-chief. Besides, the respondent No. 2 did not lead any evidence to disprove or even create a doubt upon the income of the deceased. The Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa(Supra) as referred to by the learned senior counsel for the appellants has held that if the claim appears to be highly exorbitant or if the claim is made contrary to the ground realities, the learned Tribunal would be justified in resorting to some guesswork in terms of the ground realities. In the instant case, the claim of the appellants was that the deceased earned a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month by selling vegetables on wholesale basis. That if the amount appeared to be somewhat exorbitant to the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal could have resorted to some guesswork since there were no other evidences led to the contrary by the respondent No. 2. 18. As far as the question of awarding compensation towards loss of estate and towards loss of expectation of life, it is a settled position as has been held in the case of Kalpanaraj and Others(Supra) that the learned Tribunal should award some compensation towards the two heads. At the same time, the Apex Court had also considered a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be adequate towards funeral expenses. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the awarded amount of the learned Tribunal calls for appropriate enhancement. Considering the fact that an unskilled labourer is being given a daily wage @ Rs. 270/-, I do not see as to why the same ratio should not be applied to the instant case and therefore it would only be appropriate that an amount of Rs. 7000/- be accounted as the monthly earning of the deceased. Considering the fact that an unskilled labourer is being given a daily wage @ Rs. 270/-, I do not see as to why the same ratio should not be applied to the instant case and therefore it would only be appropriate that an amount of Rs. 7000/- be accounted as the monthly earning of the deceased. Likewise, the funeral expenses which was given by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- should be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellants should be further awarded a sum of Rs. 100,000/- each towards the two heads i.e. loss of estate and loss of expectation of life of the deceased. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the dependents of the deceased being four members, ¼th should be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. 19. Therefore, after the enhancement of the compensation as indicated above, the amount of compensation payable to the appellants will be as under :- (1) Annual Income - Rs. 7000/-x12 = Rs. 84,000/- (2) Addition to 30% for future prospect since the deceased is above 40 years of age = Rs. 25,200/- =Rs. 84,000x30/100 = Rs. 25,200/- Hence, loss of income=Rs.84,000+Rs.25,200x15 (mutiplier) = Rs.16,38,000/- (3) Deduction of ¼th for personal expense = =2 x Rs.16,38,000/-/4 = Rs. 8,19,000/- (4) Funeral expenses = Rs. 50,000/- (5) Loss of love and affection for one minor child = Rs. 100,000/- (6) Loss of estate = Rs. 100,000/- (7) Loss of expectation of life = Rs. 100,000/- TOTAL = Rs. 11,69,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs sixty nine thousand) only. 20. In the result, the appellants are entitled to Rs.11,69,000/-. The awarded sum of Rs. 11,69,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs sixty nine thousand) only awarded to the appellants shall be deposited by the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company by cheque in the name of Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aizawl along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 19.06.2014 till the same is deposited before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter disburse the same after observing the formalities. 21. With the above observations and directions, the Judgment and Award of the learned Tribunal dated 01.07.2016 stands modified and the appeal accordingly is allowed. No cost. Appeal allowed.