JUDGMENT : S.G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi with learned advocate Mr. Karna Dhomse for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. Pradeep J. Patel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Perused the record. 2. Appellants herein are original claimants before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal of Panchmahals in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1112 of 2006. Such petition was preferred by present appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the accidental death of husband of the appellant No.1. Appellant No.2 is son of the victim and he was minor on the date of accident, whereas petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 – respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein are elder brothers of the deceased – victim. Since none of the original opponents have preferred an appeal challenging the impugned judgement and award dated 29.02.2016, it becomes clear that there is no dispute regarding nature of accident, its result and liability to pay compensation is concerned. Therefore, those details are not reproduced herein. However, the basic information is recollected, which are to the effect that on 17.06.2006, when victim was going on his Motorcycle No. GJ-17-K-4815, the driver of the truck No.HR-55-A-9689 had came in excessive speed endangering human life and not following traffic rules and dashed with the motorcycle. The opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are driver, owner and insurer of such truck. It is undisputed fact that because of accident, victim has received fatal injuries and truck driver was prosecuted. 3. After allowing both the sides to adduce evidence, by impugned award, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,42,000/- towards compensation to the original claimants, which includes present appellants and respondent Nos. 4 and 5. For arriving at such amount of compensation, tribunal has considered Rs.5000/- as monthly income of the deceased – victim and added 50% as prospective income and after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses applied 15 as suitable multiplier since deceased aged about 40 years, so as to arrive at Rs.9,00,000/- towards loss of dependency to such amount Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.7000/- for funeral expenses and transportation. 4. Being aggrieved by such quantum of compensation, so also disbursement in favour of petitioner Nos. 4. Being aggrieved by such quantum of compensation, so also disbursement in favour of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, who are elder brothers of the victim and, thereby, when they are not dependents of the victim, appellants have preferred this appeal. It is unfortunate that the tribunal has failed to realize that claimant Nos. 3 and 4 being respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein are neither dependents nor legal representatives or legal heirs of the deceased victim when his widow and minor son are there, who have preferred claim petition. Therefore, tribunal has erred in awarding 40% of the total amount of compensation to petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Tribunal has also failed to realize that if parents of the victim are available, then also, they are not entitled to more than 33% of the amount of compensation whereas tribunal has awarded 40% of the total amount of compensation to the aged and elder brothers of the victim. Therefore, irrespective of any other ground, the impugned award needs to be modified, so as to make it clear that claimant Nos. 3 and 4 being respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein are not entitled to compensation. However, the record shows that after the impugned judgment when insurance company has deposited the amount and before appellant prefers the Civil Application for stay, the tribunal has already disbursed the amount in favour of such claimant. Therefore, when impugned award categorically confirms that out of the total amount, 70% is to be deposited in the name of all the petitioners for the period of 5 years and only 30% is to be paid to them, now it would not be appropriate to ask respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to refund the 30% amount of their share. But so far as amount of FDR is concerned, such FDR shall not be disbursed in favour of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 – being respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. The tribunal is directed to call for the amount of FDR which is invested in the name of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and to disburse it in favour of present appellant. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has argued that since amount is disbursed in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it cannot be recalled. The tribunal is directed to call for the amount of FDR which is invested in the name of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and to disburse it in favour of present appellant. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Patel has argued that since amount is disbursed in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it cannot be recalled. However, when tribunal has committed irregularity and illegality in awarding compensation in favour of the brothers of the victim, who are certainly neither dependents nor legal heirs or representatives of the deceased and when they are not entitled to any amount of compensation, there is no option but to redisburse the 70% amount to the appellants. To that extent impugned award stands modified. 6. Whereas so far as total amount of compensation is concerned, available record and proceedings proves that though claimants have not proved the income of the deceased, the fact remains that the statement of accounts produced before the tribunal goes to show that average monthly income is not more than Rs.4000/- whereas tribunal has considered Rs.5000/- when widow has stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/-. Again tribunal was generous enough to add 50% instead of 40% when deceased was not salarised person and his income is not fixed. Therefore when tribunal has considered good income, I do not see any reason to modify the award so far as monthly dependency is concerned only because appeal is preferred. Any of such claimants, who are claiming that the victim was earning handsome amount is suppose to prove such income by adducing evidence. In present appeal though claimants have produced several documents, they do not bother to prove such documents. Therefore, in any case, average monthly income of the deceased can never be considered as Rs.15000/- as claimed by the appellants. Therefore to that extent there is no substance in the appeal. However, so far as quantum of compensation on different non conventional heads when tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.7000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate relaying upon decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 the total amount of compensation in all non conventional heads would be not less then Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, there is shortfall of Rs.28,000/- in aggregate. 7. Therefore, there is shortfall of Rs.28,000/- in aggregate. 7. In view of such difference the impugned award is modified so as to award additional amount of Rs.28,000/- with 9% interest. As and when such amount is deposited it is to be disbursed in favour of the appellants. Thereby now claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs.9,70,000/- with 9% interest. In view of above discussion award is also modified, so as to confirm that though respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not entitled to any compensation, if any amount is disbursed in favour of them in cash, such amount is not be recalled or refunded. However, the amount of FDR in name of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is to be recalled and shall be disbursed in favour of the present appellants, so as to invest 70% in FDR and pay 30% in cash to them. For the purpose, if respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not sign the FDR to refund the amount, then the tribunal shall execute such award by directing the bank to deposit the amount of such FDR with accrued interest in the tribunal for disbursement in favour of the appellants as per the above directions. 8. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal.