JUDGMENT Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. - The instant appeals for enhancement of compensation have been preferred by the claimant-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 15.01.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") in claim petition No.754/2009 titled Shabana & Ors versus Jainarayan & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- to the claimant-appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposed of these appeals are that on 11.04.2009, Shamim Ahmed (the deceased) was going on his motor-cycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-SZ- 0672 from his house towards his work place. The said motor-cycle was driven by the deceased moderately and on correct side of the road. At about 8.30 AM, when he reached near Lalwas Bandha, one bus bearing No.RJ-14-PB-0028 came in fast speed from Mahatma Gandhi Hospital side and hit the motor-cycle at it's back. The bus was driven by non-claimant/respondent No.1 in fast speed and in negligent manner violating the traffic rules. Due to the said accident, Shamim Ahmed sustained serious injuries and was immediately taken to the hospital, where he died during the course of treatment. FIR of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Amer-Jaipur bearing FIR No.131/2009 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the nonclaimant/respondent No.l-Jainarayan. 3. Claimant-appellants, widow, two minor daughters, one minor son and parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.50,10,000/-. It is averred in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the deceased Shamim Ahmed was 37 years aged and he was employed as Technical Engineer in M/s. Raj Associate, Hawa Sadak, Civil Line, Jaipur and his income was Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. Despite service of the notice, the non-claimant/respondent No.1 did not choose to file reply to the claim petition and remained absent before the Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him. 4. Despite service of the notice, the non-claimant/respondent No.1 did not choose to file reply to the claim petition and remained absent before the Tribunal, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him. The nonclaimant/respondent No.2 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto, stating therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by the deceased himself and driver of the bus is not responsible for the accident, therefore, the non-claimant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues including the relief. 6. In support of the claim petition, the claimants examined three witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. Nonclaimant/respondent No.2 examined two witnesses. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal decided the issue No.l, 2 and 3 in favour of the claimant- appellants in the manner that the entire negligence in causing the accident was that of the bus driver i.e. non-claimant/respondent No.l and awarded compensation to the claimant-appellants as indicated hereinabove. 8. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal on 15.01.2010, the claimant-appellants have preferred these two separate appeals for enhancement of compensation. As both the appeals arose out of the same accident and preferred against the same award passed by the Tribunal, are being decided together by this common judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month only and also in assessing the contribution to the family to be Rs.2,000/- per month only. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th, because number of dependents on the deceased was six. 10. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased, whereas, income of the deceased was prospective, therefore, there was no occasion before the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of the claimants. 11. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased Shamim Ahmed was the only earning person in the family and used to contribute a large part of his income towards claimant- appellants. 11. Learned counsel further contended that the deceased Shamim Ahmed was the only earning person in the family and used to contribute a large part of his income towards claimant- appellants. Because of his untimely death, the appellants have not only deprived of his love, affection and care but also from his economic and future contribution to the family. 12. Learned counsel also contended that a very meager amount has been awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, whereas much higher amount ought to have been awarded to the claimant-appellants under these heads. 13. Learned counsel further contended that learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding interest on the compensation amount @ 6% per annum only, whereas it is consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this High Court and several other High Courts that interest on compensation amount should have been awarded at least @ 9% per annum. 14. Mr. Vinay Matur, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants also contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider that the appellant Subur Ahmed and Shakila do not have any other source of income and there is no other child other than the deceased from whom they can get their livelihood. The learned Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.50,000/- to the claimant-appellants out of the total calculated compensation of Rs.4,01,000/- and awarded major portion to the other claimants i.e. widow and children of the deceased. Thus, the disbursement made by the 15. Tribunal is disproportionate and deserves to be reconsidered appropriately. 16. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on :- 1. (2009) 6 SCC 121 Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. 2. MACD 2017 (4) SC 137 National Insurance Company Ltd & versus Pranay Sethi & Ors. 3. MACD 2015 (SC) 66 Neeta (Smt.) W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur. 4. 2015 (1) TAC 337 (SC) Kansingh & Anr. Vs. Tukaram & Ors. 17. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. 2. MACD 2017 (4) SC 137 National Insurance Company Ltd & versus Pranay Sethi & Ors. 3. MACD 2015 (SC) 66 Neeta (Smt.) W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur. 4. 2015 (1) TAC 337 (SC) Kansingh & Anr. Vs. Tukaram & Ors. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and award, and prayed to dismiss the appeals being devoid of substance, contending that the claimants did not produce any cogent evidence regarding income of the deceased i.e. appointment letter, payment vouchers and account books of employer of the deceased which would have been the best possible evidence to prove income of the deceased. 18. We gave our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. 19. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased Shamim Ahmed to be in the age group of 36-40 years at the time of the accident. According to the claim petition, the deceased was employed with M/s. Raj Associate, Jaipur as Technical Engineer and his income was Rs.10,000/- per month. The averments of the claim petition with regard to occupation, employment and income of the deceased have been denied by the nonclaimant/respondent in the reply. 20. AW-1 Shabana is wife of the deceased Shamim Ahmed and is claimant-appellant herein, has deposed that the deceased was employed with M/s. Raj Associate, Jaipur as Technical Engineer, where he used to repair DVD, VCD and CTV, and his income was Rs.10,000/- per month. 21. AW-3 Mukesh Raj has stated that he is proprietor of Raj Associates, Jaipur. The deceased Shamim Ahmed was employed with him from 15.03.2003 to 10.04.2009 as Technical Engineer. The deceased was paid salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. In this respect, he issued a certificate under his signature on letter head of his firm, which is Ex.A-14. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he used to obtain signatures of the deceased Shamim Ahmed on the vouchers while making payment of salary to him. The witness also stated that before appointing the deceased, he issued appointment letter to him. The witness further stated that he did not produce payment vouchers and appointment letter. 22. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he used to obtain signatures of the deceased Shamim Ahmed on the vouchers while making payment of salary to him. The witness also stated that before appointing the deceased, he issued appointment letter to him. The witness further stated that he did not produce payment vouchers and appointment letter. 22. The claimant-appellants exhibited PAN Card and Passport of the deceased to be Ex.15 and Ex.16 respectively, Diploma issued by Rajasthan TV Institute, Jaipur to be Ex.17. According to Ex.17, the deceased Shamim Ahmed completed course of Diploma in Electronics of five months duration in the year 1989. The claimants did not produce any document with regard to academic qualification of the deceased. 23. According to the statement of Mukesh Raj (AW-3), he issued appointment letter to the deceased and used to obtain his signatures on voucher while making payment of salary to him. The claimant-appellants neither produced said appointment letter issued by Mukesh Raj (AW-3) nor summoned copy of the appointment letter, vouchers signed by the deceased while receiving salary and account books of his employer, which would have been the best possible evidence to prove income of the deceased, but the claimant-appellants made no efforts to produce or to summon the relevant documents from the said employer of the deceased. Even the claimant-appellants did not give any explanation for not producing or summoning the relevant documents from employer of the deceased, therefore, learned Tribunal was right in assessing income of the deceased considering minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time. 24. It is stated by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar that minimum wages of a skilled labour at the relevant time was Rs.115/- per day and Rs.2,990/- per month. Learned Tribunal fixed income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month on the premise that no concrete evidence has been produced by the claimant-appellants regarding income of the deceased. We find no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month. 25. In National Insurance Company Ltd & versus Pranay Sethi & Ors. We find no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- per month. 25. In National Insurance Company Ltd & versus Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the deceased had not a permanent job and was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made in the head of future prospects, where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Therefore, looking to the age of the deceased Shamim Ahmed, addition of 40% under the head of future prospects in the income should have been done. Therefore, total loss of income comes to Rs.50,400/- per annum [Rs.3,000/- x 12 =36,000/- (+) Rs.14,400/- (40% of Rs.36,000/-)]. The deceased Shamim Ahmed was married, who died leaving behind him widow, two minor daughters, one minor son, father and mother. Shabana (AW-1) deposed in crossexamination that her father-in-law has been retired from Government service and he is getting pension. As such, the claimant-appellant Subur Ahmed cannot be treated to be dependant on the deceased Shamim Ahmed, therefore, the number of dependent family members is five. Deducting 1/4th (Rs.12,600/-) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased himself, loss of dependancy comes to of Rs.37,800/- per annum. 26. Looking to the age of the deceased Shamim Ahmed, appropriate multiplier of 15 should be applied instead of 16 as applied by the learned Tribunal, thus total loss of dependency comes to Rs.37,800/- x 15 = 5,67,000/-. 27. The learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- each to the children and parents of the deceased towards loss of love and affection, and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Whereas learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd versus Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). 28. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum only from the date of filing of the claim petition on the awarded amount, whereas the interest @ 9% per annum ought to have been awarded as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeta (Smt.) W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur (supra) and Kansingh & Anr. Vs. Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur (supra) and Kansingh & Anr. Vs. Tukaram & Ors (supra). 29. As observed above, appellant Subur Ahmed, father of the deceased has been retired from the Government service and he is getting pension, thus, he was not dependent on the deceased. In view of the above and looking to the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, we find no reason to cause interference in the impugned order regarding apportionment of the compensation among the claimants. However, we feel it expedient to leave the matter of apportionment to the discretion of the learned Tribunal to pass order of disbursement after hearing the claimants or their counsel and considering the enhancement of compensation vide this judgment. 30. In view of the discussions made above, the total compensation has to be assessed under the various heads as follows :- Sr. No. HEADS CALCULATIONS I) Income Rs.3000/- X 12 = Rs.36,000/- p.a. II) 40% of above to be added as future prospects Rs.36000/- + Rs.14400/- =Rs.50,400/-- p.a. III) 1/4th of (ii) to be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.50400/- (-) Rs.12600/- =Rs.37,800/- p.a. IV) Compensation after multiplier of 15 is applied Rs.37,800/- X 15 =Rs.5,67,000/- V) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- VI) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- VII) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- VIII) TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED Rs.6,37,000/- 31. Accordingly, we allow these appeals in awarding Rs.6,37,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. The non-claimant/respondents shall deposit the aforesaid amount jointly and severally with the learned Tribunal after deducting the amount already paid to the appellants, if any, within eight weeks from receipt of copy of this judgment. 32. Learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the remaining amount of compensation among the claimants, after giving an opportunity of hearing to them or their counsel. No costs.