JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham-Kachchh in MACP No. 215 of 2012, the original claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for respondent no. 3. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. Perused the original record and proceedings. 3. This Court by order dated 09.07.2018 was pleased to issue notice for final disposal and call for R & P from the Tribunal and accordingly, the appeal was heard for final disposal. 4. The facts which arises in this appeal are as under- 4.1 That the accident took place on 28.04.2012 at around 3.00 PM. It is the case of the original claimants that the deceased was driving motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-12-BC-6904 and was going to Chaudhary Timber. It is the case of the appellants-original claimants that when the motorcycle reached the place of the accident, a tanker bearing registration No. GJ-12Y-7351 being driven in excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from the other side and dashed with the motorcycle being driven by the deceased. The record indicates that the deceased sustained serious injuries all over the body and fracture on both the legs and was firstly hospitalised at Vagad Welfare Hospital and then was shifted in ICU of Gokul Hospital, Rajkot. 4.2 It is a matter of fact that originally the claim petition was filed by the appellant no. 1 as father of deceased Hiten and claimed compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/-, however, during the pendency, after treatment of 3½ years, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and therefore the present appellants were added as original claimants being legal representative of the deceased. 4.3 It is the case of the appellants that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased went into coma and remained in hospital for almost 3 years. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was 19 years old and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month. The appellants have relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence before the Tribunal. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was 19 years old and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month. The appellants have relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence before the Tribunal. One of the appellant was examined at exhibit 29 and the appellant also adduced documentary evidence such as FIR at exhibit 21/1, panchnama of the place of incidence at exhibit 21/2, death certificate at exhibit 27/7, income certificate at exhibit 28/1, driving license of the deceased at exhibit 28/2, medical bills at exhibit 33, transportation bills at exhibit 34, medical case papers at exhibit 35, report of CT Scan of the brain at exhibit 38, certificate of Gokul Hospital at exhibit 39, disability certificate at exhibit 40 and PM note at exhibit 41. 4.4 The Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the birth date of the deceased was 05.12.1990 and as the accident occurred on 28.04.2012, the deceased was aged 21 years on the date of the accident. The Tribunal in absence of any documentary evidence, relying upon the oral deposition of one of the appellant, determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and applied multiplier of 18 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency and further awarded a sum of Rs. 16,04,851/- as compensation towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 2,04,800/- as transportation expenses and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 22,66,651/- with 7.5% interest from the date of the filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the original claimants for enhancement. 5. Mr. Modi, learned advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Mr. Modi contended that even if the minimum wages standard are applied, the income would come to Rs. 4,980/- per month and thus, it was contended that the Tribunal has committed an error. Mr. Modi also contended that the appellants would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 40%. Mr. Modi further contended that the Tribunal has also committed error in awarding a meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Mr. 4,980/- per month and thus, it was contended that the Tribunal has committed an error. Mr. Modi also contended that the appellants would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 40%. Mr. Modi further contended that the Tribunal has also committed error in awarding a meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Mr. Modi contended that the deceased has sustained serious injuries and because of the injuries so sustained in the accident, the deceased remained in the state of coma for more than three years and had to pass through unexplainable and unimaginable agony, pain, shock and suffering. Mr. Modi contended that considering the long period of hospitalisation, the Tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering which deserves to be enhanced. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Modi contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed by enhancing the compensation as prayed for and the award be modified accordingly. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate has supported the impugned judgement and award. Mr. Mazmudar contended that the Tribunal has committed no error in determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Mr. Mazmudar contended that the evidence about income adduced by the original claimants is not believable and that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Mr. Mazmudar contended that no evidence was led by the claimants and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the figure of Rs. 3,000/- per month as income of the deceased upon appreciating the evidence on record. According to Mr. Mazmudar, the income of the deceased is rightly assessed. It was thus contended by Mr. Mazmudar that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties. 8. Upon considering the submissions and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the version of the claimants in its deposition. The death certificate on record at Mark 27/7 shows that the deceased expired on 13.11.2015. The certificate has been produced on record to show that the deceased was working as Field Assistant(Technical) and was earning Rs. 84,000/- per annum. The death certificate on record at Mark 27/7 shows that the deceased expired on 13.11.2015. The certificate has been produced on record to show that the deceased was working as Field Assistant(Technical) and was earning Rs. 84,000/- per annum. Even in further examination, the claimants have reiterated the same at exhibit 29/C. In his cross-examination, the deponent, one of the appellant has stated that his deceased son used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month and he was not paying any income tax. The appellants have also examined Bhaveshbhai Gunvantrai Jani at exhibit 32. The said witness is the owner of the electronic shop where the deceased was working as a Field Assistant (Technical). He has also stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased joined his services in the year 2009 and the deceased was working as Field Assistant in his firm. He has also stated that the deceased was paid his salary in cash. 9. The claimants have therefore brought on record that the deceased was working as Field Assistant (Technical). Though the income has not been proved by the documentary evidence and even considering the evidence of the owner of the firm Bhaveshbhai Jani at Exhibit 32/C, cannot be the sole basis of determination of income of the deceased. In facts of this case, however, in absence of any evidence as regards income, the minimum wages standard has to be applied. The accident has occurred in the year 2012 and considering the minimum wages standard, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 4,980/-, which deserves to be rounded off at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we determine the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 10. As the deceased was 21 years old on the date of the accident, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the appellants would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 40%. Further, as the appellants are father and mother, and the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 requires to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, accordingly, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under- Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. Further, as the appellants are father and mother, and the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 requires to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, accordingly, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency as under- Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 2000/- (40% prospective income) = Rs. 7,000/- - Rs. 3,500/- (1/2 towards personal expenses) = Rs. 3,500/- X 12 X 18 = Rs. 7,56,000/- 11. The evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that because of the accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and had received scalp injury and was admitted to super specialty hospital known as Gokul Hospital at Rajkot and was admitted in ICU and remained in coma. The said fact is fortified by the medical papers which are on record. The photographs which are forming part of the record also indicates that the deceased sustained serious injuries all over the body including injuries on leg and scalp and ultimately succumbed to the same in state of coma on 13.11.2015, almost after 3 years. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/- only as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, which deserves to be enhanced appropriately. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole, this Court deems it fit to quantify the same at Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/-. 12. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion therefore, the appellants would be entitled to compensation as under- Loss of dependency Rs. 7,56,000/- Medical expenses (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs. 16,04,851/- Transportation (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs. 2,04,800/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Total compensation Rs.26,65,651/- Thus, the appellants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 26,65,651/- with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 22,66,651/-, the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 3,99,000/- with 7% interest from the claim petition till its realisation proportionately. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The insurance company is directed to deposition the additional amount along with proportionate interest as awarded by this Court with the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this judgment and order. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The insurance company is directed to deposition the additional amount along with proportionate interest as awarded by this Court with the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this judgment and order. Record and proceedings be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.