JUDGMENT Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. - The appeal No.595/2008 has been preferred by the claimants and appeal No.2473/2007 has been preferred by non-claimant Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as "UPSRTC") under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 04.04.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No.59/2005 titled as Dhula Ram & Ors. vs. Daya Shanker & Ors, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 2,12,500/- to the claimants alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. It was also directed that 50% of the awarded amount will be paid by non-claimant No.1 & 2 jointly and severally, and remaining 50% amount shall be paid by non-claimant No.3 alone. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the claimants have filed a claim petition stating therein that at about 8.15 AM on 19.09.2004, when the deceased Magdu @ Magdi was going from Ajmer to Pushkar in a jeep No.RJ-19-1C-4962, a bus No.U.P. 81-N-9015 coming from opposite direction has dashed against the jeep. The bus was driven by it's driver rashly and negligently. As a result thereof, Magdu @ Magdi sustained injuries in the accident and died on the spot. It is also stated that the deceased was 48 years old at the time of the accident and, she was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by running milk dairy and from animal husbandry. It is also stated that non-claimant No.1 was driving the bus at the time of the accident. The non-claimant No.2 is registered owner of the bus and the bus was insured with non-claimant No.3/Insurance Company. In different heads, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 22,11,000/- from nonclaimants jointly and severally. 3. Non-claimant No.1 did not choose to appear before the Tribunal despite service of notice, thus, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. 4. Non-claimant No.2 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto, stating therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by it's driver and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against him. 5. Non-claimant No.3/Insurance Company also opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto. 4. Non-claimant No.2 opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto, stating therein that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by it's driver and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against him. 5. Non-claimant No.3/Insurance Company also opposed the claim petition by filing reply thereto. It is specifically stated that driver of the bus was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and this is a case of contributory negligence, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues. 7. In support of the claim petition, claimants examined AW-1 Dhula Ram, AW-2 Govind Singh and exhibited certain documents. Non-claimants examined NAW-1 Daya Shankar. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants in the manner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. U.P. 81-N-9015 by it's driver re. non-claimant No.1, and Magdu @ Magdi died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Issue No.2 has been decided in favour of the claimants in the manner that the bus was driven by non-claimant No.1 in the employment and for the benefit of non-claimant No.2 i.e. owner of the bus. Issue No.4 has been decided against the non-claimant No.2 and 3 in the manner that driver of the bus was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal also gave a finding that driver, owner and insurer of the jeep are not necessary party to the claim petition. Issue No.3 and 5 have been decided in favour of the claimants and compensation has been awarded alongwith interest as mentioned hereinabvoe. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma submits that learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in considering income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- per month only, whereas it is consistent view of the Supreme Court and various High Courts that even if the deceased was not an earning member, compensation should be calculated taking notional income at Rs. 30,000/- per annum and has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. reported in 2014 R.A.R. 289 (SC). 10. 30,000/- per annum and has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. reported in 2014 R.A.R. 289 (SC). 10. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the deceased Magdu @ Magdi was the only earning member in the family and used to contribute a large part of her income towards the claimant-appellants. Because of her untimely death, the appellants have not only been deprived of her love, affection and care but also from her economic and future contribution. It is also submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses, whereas it is proved that the claimant No.2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased and were dependent on her. It is also proved that the claimant No.1 Dhula Ram (husband of the deceased) was sick and was also dependent on income of the deceased. Thus, looking to the number of dependents on income of the deceased, only ^rd of the income could have been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, impugned judgment and award should be modified accordingly. 11. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered future prospects of the deceased. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased to be 50 years at the time of the accident. Thus, 25% of established income of the deceased ought to have been added while calculating compensation amount, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 (2) R.A.R. 147 (SC). 12. Learned counsel also submits that a very meager amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral and transportation expenses etc., whereas much higher amount ought to have been awarded to the claimants under these heads. 13. reported in 2017 (2) R.A.R. 147 (SC). 12. Learned counsel also submits that a very meager amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral and transportation expenses etc., whereas much higher amount ought to have been awarded to the claimants under these heads. 13. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in awarding interest on the compensation amount @ 7% per anuum only, whereas, it is consistent view of 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 and has given reference of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta (Smt.) W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors. Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur reported in MACD 2015 (SC) 66 and Kansingh & Anr vs. Tukaram & Ors reported in 2015 (1) TAC 337 (SC). 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimants vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, which does not call for any interference in the appeal and prayed to dismiss the appeal preferred by the claimants. 15. Mr. Ashish Kumar Sharma, Advocate appearing for Mr. Pankaj Gupta learned counsel for UPSRTC submits that learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in directing that 50% of the awarded amount be deposited by non-claimant No.1 and 2 jointly and severally and, remaining 50% by non-claimant No.3/Insurance Company alone, whereas liability to pay the compensation amount should be fastened on all the non-claimants jointly and severally. 16. Mr. Rishi Pal Agarwal and Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-claimant/Insurance Company submit that the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. (supra) is not applicable in this case. 17. I gave my anxious consideration to rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 18. Claimant Dhula Ram (AW-1) has stated on oath that his wife Smt. Magdu @ Magdi died in an accident on 19.09.2004. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 48 years aged and she was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by supplying milk to the dairy and agricultural work. He is a sick person. 18. Claimant Dhula Ram (AW-1) has stated on oath that his wife Smt. Magdu @ Magdi died in an accident on 19.09.2004. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 48 years aged and she was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by supplying milk to the dairy and agricultural work. He is a sick person. Magdu @ Magdi died leaving behind her the witness and two minor children. In rebuttal of above, the non-claimants did not produce any evidence. 19. The claimants did not produce any documentary evidence with regard to income of the deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal gave finding that income of the deceased is not proved, as stated in the claim petition and for contribution to the domestic work of the family, learned Tribunal has assessed her income to be Rs. 2,000/-per month. 20. It is not the case of the non-claimants that the deceased was not working at all. Indisputably, there were three members in family of the deceased. In the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. vs. Lala & Ors. (supra), death of a non-earning ten years aged boy caused in a road accident occurred on 19.07.1992. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the fact of rupee value has come down from the year 1994, when the notional income of the nonearning member prior to the accident, was at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. Hon'ble Apex Court held that it would be just and reasonable to take the notional income at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. In view of the above, annual income of the deceased Magdu @ Magdi should have been taken to be Rs. 30,000/- per annum. 21. The claimants did not produce any document with regard to age of the deceased to be 48 years at the time of the accident. Post mortem report of the deceased (Ex.3) has been produced, therein age of the deceased has been mentioned to be 50 years. Learned Tribunal gave finding that the deceased was 50 years aged at the time of the accident and calculated the compensation amount accordingly. Learned counsel for both the parties did not assail the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to age of the deceased. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased Magdu @ Magdi to be 50 years at the time of the accident. 22. Learned counsel for both the parties did not assail the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to age of the deceased. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased Magdu @ Magdi to be 50 years at the time of the accident. 22. The learned Tribunal did not consider future prospectus of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased Magdu @ Magdi was 50 years aged at the time of the accident. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that in case, the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established income should be made, where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. In view of the above, 25% of the established income should be added while calculating compensation amount. Thus loss of income comes to Rs. 37,500/- [Rs.30,000/- + Rs.,7,500/-(25% of Rs. 30,000/-)]. 23. The deceased Magdu @ Magdi died leaving behind her husband and two minor children alleged to be dependent on her income. If it is considered that the claimant Dhularam (husband of the deceased) was not dependent on income of the deceased, even then the claimant No.2 and 3 being minor children, were dependent on her income. Therefore, taking note of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , only /rd of the established income of the deceased should have been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3. Whereas, learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award should be modified accordingly. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 25,000/- [Rs.37,500/- (-) Rs. 12,500/- (/rd of Rs. 37,500/-)] per annum. 24. Looking to the age of the deceased Smt. Magdu @ Magdi, appropriate multiplier of 13 should be applied. Thus, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rs.25,000/-p.a. X 13). 25. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/-each to claimant No.2 & 3 for loss of love, affection and guidance, Rs. 5,500/- towards funeral and transportation expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards loss of estate and, Rs. Thus, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rs.25,000/-p.a. X 13). 25. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/-each to claimant No.2 & 3 for loss of love, affection and guidance, Rs. 5,500/- towards funeral and transportation expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards loss of estate and, Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of expectation of life, whereas the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/-towards funeral expenses, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). 26. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the awarded amount, whereas interest @ 9% per annum ought to have been awarded as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kansingh & Anr vs. Tukaram & Ors (supra) and Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur (supra). 27. Without assigning any reason, learned Tribunal has directed that 50% of the awarded amount be paid by non-claimant No.1 & 2 jointly and severally, and remaining 50% amount be paid by non-claimant No.3 alone, whereas all the non-claimants are jointly and severally responsible to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the claimants. Thus, the impugned judgment calls for interference of this Court accordingly. 28. 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.30,000/- per annum (ii) 25% of the above to be added as future prospects [Rs.30,000/- + Rs. 7,500/-] = Rs. 37,500/- per annum (iii) %rd of above (ii) to be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.37,500/- (-) Rs. 12,500/- = Rs. 25,000/- per annum (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 13 is applied Rs.25,000/- X 13 = 3,25,000/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- (vi) Loss of love, affection, care and guidance to children Rs.15,000/- (vii) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.3,95,000/- 29. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed and, the impugned judgment and award dated 04.04.2007 is modified to the extent that the claimant-appellants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 3,95,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum (11 of 11) [CMA-595/2008] from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed and, the impugned judgment and award dated 04.04.2007 is modified to the extent that the claimant-appellants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 3,95,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum (11 of 11) [CMA-595/2008] from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. The non-claimants shall deposit the aforesaid amount jointly and severally with the learned Tribunal after deducting the amount already deposited/paid to the claimants, if any, within eight weeks from receipt of copy of this judgment. No Costs. 30. A copy of this judgment be placed in connected file also.