JUDGMENT & ORDER : S. G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Ms. Pooja Hotchandani for the appellants. Perused the record. 2. The appellants herein have challenged the impugned award dated 4.7.2014 in M.A.C.P. No.1817 of 2004 by M.A.C.T., Vadodara, whereby the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,11,300/- for the death of Security Guard of a residential colony, considering that his earnings would be only Rs. 2,300/- and after deducting 1/4th towards his expenses and applying 9 as suitable multiplier, so as to award Rs. 1,86,300/- towards dependency benefit, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thereby, it is quite clear and certain that Tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation, because Tribunal without considering the prospective income, has reduced the earning capacity of the victim without any reason and also failed to award just and reasonable compensation on different conventional heads, when on all such heads, at the relevant time, the proposed award of several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was more than Rs. 3 Lacs. Since none of the opponents have challenged such award, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of accident and its result, so also the liability of the Insurance Company and therefore, those details are not much material to be reproduced herein, more particularly, when those details are well described in impugned award. 3. I have perused the record and proceedings and impugned award. It becomes clear that one of the applicant has specifically stated on oath in his deposition at Exh.23 that deceased - victim, aged 60 years was earning Rs. 2,500/- as salary and was getting uniform, shoes, bonus and several other gifts as well as daily refreshment expenses etc. with medical expenses from the employer and thereby, his monthly earning is Rs. 3,500/-, and when his father was taken from one hospital to another immediately after the accident for better treatment, died during such treatment, and that if his father had not met with the accident, he would have been earning Rs. 7,500/- in future. During cross-examination of such witness, opponent has inquired about the documentary evidence regarding income of the victim wherein witness has stated that except documents produced by him on record, there is no other evidence. 7,500/- in future. During cross-examination of such witness, opponent has inquired about the documentary evidence regarding income of the victim wherein witness has stated that except documents produced by him on record, there is no other evidence. Thereby, practically, opponents have, after referring the document at Mark 20/7, which confirms that victim was getting Rs. 2,500/- in cash and other benefits, whereby, his total earning was Rs. 3,500/- at the relevant time. 4. Therefore, even if we may not consider Rs. 3,500/- as total earnings of the deceased, in absence of any other evidence, Tribunal has certainly erred in reducing it to Rs. 2,300/-, when there is categorical statement on oath that deceased was getting Rs. 2,500/- as monthly salary, and more particularly in absence of any evidence in rebuttal of such statement on oath. Therefore, let us consider atleast Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased - victim and considering his age, we can certainly add Rs. 300/- towards prospective income as per the decision of full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which will result into average monthly earning capacity of the victim as Rs. 3,300/-. Considering the number of legal representatives being five, if we deduct the 1/4th towards his personal expenses, then, monthly dependency of the claimants would be Rs. 2,475/-. Thereby, yearly dependency would be Rs. 29,700/- and applying 9 as suitable multiplier, the amount for loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2,67,300/- to such amount, one has to add Rs. 70,000/- in aggregate for all conventional heads as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. Considering the nature of injuries and factual details, after the accident, whereby the deceased victim was required to be shifted from one hospital to another for treatment, let there be an additional award of Rs. 10,000/- for pain, shock and suffering both by the victim as well as the claimants. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to total amount of compensation of Rs. 3,47,300/-. Thus, the impugned award needs to be modified so as to confirm that the claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs. 3,82,000/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of filing application till its realisation. Rest of the directions in operative order of award shall remain unchanged. 5. 3,47,300/-. Thus, the impugned award needs to be modified so as to confirm that the claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs. 3,82,000/- as compensation with 9% interest from the date of filing application till its realisation. Rest of the directions in operative order of award shall remain unchanged. 5. Thereby, now, if respondents have already deposited the amount as per the impugned award, then, they should pay the difference of Rs. 1,36,000/- with 9% interest from the date of application till its realisation within 12 weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 6. The First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. R & P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.