JUDGMENT : M G Giratkar, J. Both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment dated 28th January, 2006 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Akola, in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 302 of 2004 and 303 of 2004. Both the Claim Petitions were fled for the deaths of Pushpalata and Minakshi, who died in the accident. The facts giving rise to fling of the Claim Petitions and the present appeals, in short, are as under:- 2. That, on 9th November,2003 in the night, Minakshi daughter of Parmanand Dubey, aged about 20 years and Pushpalata wife of Parmanand Dubey were travelling in the auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No. MH-30-E-9372. When the auto-rickshaw reached near the petrol Pump of Indian Oil on the National Highway No.6, the offending truck bearing Registration No. MTS-6357 gave a violent dash to the auto-rickshaw. The impact was so severe that the auto-rickshaw was crushed under the truck. Pushpalata and Meenakshi sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. As usual, a report was lodged and the offence was registered against the truck driver. The offending truck was owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.1 [in these appeals]. The claimants fled Claim Petitions for grant of compensation. The learned Tribunal allowed both the Claim Petitions partly and granted compensation of Rs.2,54,000-00 in respect of the death of Pushpalata and in case of death of Meenakshi, Rs.1,21,000/- along with interest. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgments in both these appeals on the ground of quantum of compensation. 3. Heard learned Adv. Shri C. A. Joshi for the appellants in both these appeals. He has submitted that Pushpalata was running a Beauty Parlour and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the evidence produced on record and wrongly took her income as Rs.2,000/- per month. The learned counsel has submitted that Meenakshi was doing the work of photography and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of Rs.1,500/- per month in respect of death of Meenakshi. The learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the income of deceased Pushpalata and Meenakshi at Rs.5,000/- per month each. 4. Heard learned counsel Ms. Shilpa Tapadia for respondent no.1 - Insurance Company. She has submitted that no documentary evidence is fled on record to prove the income. The learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the income of deceased Pushpalata and Meenakshi at Rs.5,000/- per month each. 4. Heard learned counsel Ms. Shilpa Tapadia for respondent no.1 - Insurance Company. She has submitted that no documentary evidence is fled on record to prove the income. The oral evidence is not supported by any other documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased. There is no merit in both the appeals and, therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. The Appellant no.4 was not a claimant before the Tribunal. He was residing separately and, therefore, he was not a dependent upon the deceased. Hence, the dependency of husband of Pushpalata, i.e., appellant no.4, cannot be taken into consideration. At last, she urged to dismiss both the appeals. 5. There is no dispute about the accident. There is also no dispute by respondent no.1 about the insurance of the offending truck. The dispute is only about the quantum of compensation. As per the contention of the appellants, the deceased Pushpalata was running a Beauty Parlor and earning Rs.5,000/- from the said business. There is no documentary evidence of any kind, but oral evidence adduced by the claimants show that she was running a Beauty Parlour. After doing the household works, she was running a beauty parlour. In absence of any documentary evidence, the notional income of Rs.3,000/- can be taken into consideration. The judgment in the case of Lata Wadhwa & others Vs. State of Bihar & others, (2001) 8 SCC 197 was pointed out, but it was not considered by the trial Court. As per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others,2019 4 MhLJ 721, the compensation is to be granted taking into consideration future prospects, love and affection etc. 6. The deceased Meenakshi was doing photography as per the contention of the claimants. But, no documentary evidence is produced on record. Hence, in the absence of documentary evidence, the notional income of Meenakshi is taken into consideration at Rs.3,000/- per month. The husband of Pushpalata and father of Meenakshi was not residing with them. He was residing separately. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was dependent on the earning of Meenakshi and Pushpalata. Hence, in the absence of documentary evidence, the notional income of Meenakshi is taken into consideration at Rs.3,000/- per month. The husband of Pushpalata and father of Meenakshi was not residing with them. He was residing separately. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was dependent on the earning of Meenakshi and Pushpalata. Moreover, he was not claimant before the Claims Tribunal. He is made Appellant No. 4 by amending the Memo of Appeal. Hence, the amount of compensation in case of death of Pushpalata is as under:- [a] Rs.3,60,000-00 ... Rs. 3000-00 Per month notional income [x] 12 = Rs.36,000-00 [-] one-third deduction, i.e., Rs.12,000-00 = Rs.24,000-00 [x] 15 [deceased was aged about 40 years] = Rs.3,60,000-00. [b] Rs.50,000-00 ... For loss of consortium. [c] Rs.15,000-00 ... Funeral expenses. [d] Rs.15,000-00 ... Loss of estate. --- --- -- Rs.4,40,000-00 ... Total amount of compensation. ----- Thus, the claimants, are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,40,000-00 [rupees four lakhs forty thousand only] for the death of Pushpalata. 7. In case of death of Meenakshi, the notional income is taken into consideration at Rs.3,000/- per month, as there is no documentary evidence of any kind to show that she was doing the work of photography. Hence, the amount of compensation in case of death of Meenakshi is as under:- [a] Rs.4,53, ,600-00 ... Rs. 3000-00 per month notional income [+] Rs. 1200-00 for future prospects = Rs.4200-00 [-] Rs.2100-00 towards ffty per cent deduction as she was unmarried = Rs.2100-00 [x] 12 = Rs.25,200- 00 [yearly income] [x] 18 = Rs.4,53,600-00. [b] Rs.40,000-00 . ... For loss of love and affection. [c] Rs.15,000-00 . ... Funeral expenses. [d] [d] Rs.15,000-00 ... Loss of estate. ------ Rs.5,23,600-00 ... Total amount of compensation. ------ 8. In that view of the matter, both the appeals are partly allowed. The respondent nos. 1 - Insurance Company and respondent no.2 - vehicle owner shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs.4,40,000-00 [rupees four lakhs forty thousand only] along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from the date of petition till the realization of whole amount in Claim Petition No. 302 of 2004. The respondent nos. 1 - Insurance Company and respondent no.2 - vehicle owner shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs.4,40,000-00 [rupees four lakhs forty thousand only] along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from the date of petition till the realization of whole amount in Claim Petition No. 302 of 2004. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation of Rs.5,23,600-00 [rupees five lakhs twenty-three thousand six hundred only] in case of death of Meenakshi in Claim Petition No. 303 of 2004 along with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of petition till realization of whole amount, including No-Fault-Liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. The claimants - appellant nos. 1 to 3 shall get the compensation in equal shares.