JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation determined and awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (for short, ‘Tribunal’) by its judgment and award dated 28th of June, 2012. 2. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal decided claim petition of the appellants under Section 166 of the Act and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,19,000 under different heads while fastening liability on respondents jointly and severally. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that on fateful day of 18th of June 2006, when deceased Sanjay Chalana was coming to Bikaner from Delhi in his car bearing Registration No. RJ-07-C-6318, at about 3:30 PM near village Norangdesar it was hit by truck No. RJ-14-1G-0548 driven at high speed rashiy and negligently by its driver. The accident was so severe that it resulted in crushing of the car as well as Sanjay Chalana on the spot. In the claim petition, it is averred by the appellant-claimants that at the time of accidental death, age of Sanjay Chalana was 38 years and he was earning handsomely. By placing on record requisite documents, including income-tax returns, the appellants quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,41,20,000 under different heads. After issuance of notice, first respondent – driver of the truck, put in appearance but did not file reply to the claim petition, therefore, his right to file reply was forfeited. Second respondent – owner of the truck, contested the claim, wherein he has admitted factum of accident and also acknowledged insurance of the vehicle with third respondent insurance company. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company contested the claim by submitting its detailed reply. In the return, on behalf of insurer a specific objection was raised that the driver of insured vehicle was not having a valid licence at the time of accident. With this plea, the insurer claimed its absolvement from liability to pay compensation by romping in Section 147 & 149 of the Act. In the return, on behalf of insurer a specific objection was raised that the driver of insured vehicle was not having a valid licence at the time of accident. With this plea, the insurer claimed its absolvement from liability to pay compensation by romping in Section 147 & 149 of the Act. That apart, the insurer also alleged in the reply that accident has occurred due to negligence of deceased himself inasmuch as at the time of accident he was driving his own car rashly and negligently violating the traffic rules. 4. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled four issues for determination. 5. For substantiating the claim, appellants Smt. Aarti and Jogendra Lal Chalana, besides two other witnesses, testified on oath. The appellants also tendered documentary evidence and produced in all thirty-one documents, which were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, no documentary or oral evidence was tendered. 6. Upon conclusion of evidence of the rival parties, learned Tribunal heard final arguments and by its impugned judgment and award decided Issue No.1 & 3 simultaneously. While deciding Issues 1 & 3, the learned Tribunal concluded that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. Further, the learned Tribunal also recorded its definite finding that for cause of accident, there was no negligency on the part of the deceased. 7. Adverting to Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal while considering income of the deceased Rs.36,000/- per annum made one-third deduction for his personal expenses and thereafter applying multiplier of sixteen, quantified total amount of compensation for loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,84,000/-. Besides that, for non-conventional damages also amount was added and worked out total amount of compensation Rs.4,19,000/-. Issue No.4, which was settled on the basis of objection of the respondent-insurer, was decided against it by observing that it has failed to discharge its onus. 8. Mr. Gurvinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that learned Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding Issue No.2 inasmuch as the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate in the backdrop of evidence and other materials available on record. 8. Mr. Gurvinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that learned Tribunal has seriously erred in deciding Issue No.2 inasmuch as the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate in the backdrop of evidence and other materials available on record. Learned counsel would contend that the learned Tribunal has not at all cared to consider the income-tax return of the deceased (Ex.24A) and while considering business income it has simply relied upon salary income of the deceased without adding income of business profits. He has, therefore, argued that assessment of deceased’s income to the tune of Rs.36,000/- per annum is grossly inadequate, which deserves enhancement. It is also contended by learned counsel that the learned Tribunal, in the backdrop of age of the deceased, has not at all awarded compensation for future prospects. Learned counsel has also contended that one-third deduction for personal expenses from income of the deceased is also excessive in the backdrop of four dependents. Elaborating his submission in this behalf, Mr. Singh has contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have made one-forth deduction from the income of deceased for personal expenses instead of one-third, and therefore, to that extent impugned award is liable to be modified. Lastly, learned counsel has argued that the amount of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate and the interest should have been awarded @ 9% per annum. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Mukul Singhvi, appearing on behalf of respondent-insurer, has stoutly defended the impugned judgment and award. Learned counsel Mr. Singhvi contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed annual income of the deceased and one-third deduction for personal expenses is also just and reasonable, which warrants no interference. Learned counsel for the insurer also argued that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 6% per annum is a just decision, which requires no further enhancement. 10. The learned Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs.36,000 annually. It appears that the learned Tribunal has completely overlooked the occupation of deceased and quantified monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.3,000/- only, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The occupation of the deceased cannot be doubted on the strength of evidence and materials on record. It appears that the learned Tribunal has completely overlooked the occupation of deceased and quantified monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.3,000/- only, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The occupation of the deceased cannot be doubted on the strength of evidence and materials on record. In claim petitions, strict rules of evidence are not applicable rather any material placed on record by claimants, is required to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal for determining proper income of the deceased. As a matter of fact, the appellants in the instant case have shown a very moderate income of the deceased which by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed as an embellished version. Moreover, in the light of available material and occupation of the deceased assessment of income is per se inadequate which deserves enhancement. 11. Therefore, in such circumstances, upon examining evidence and materials available on record, I feel persuaded to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal for reassessing the amount of compensation for loss of dependency. In this view of the matter, by pressing into service criteria of just compensation at least the income of deceased @ Rs.45000/- per annum would be just and appropriate for determining compensation under this head. As the learned Tribunal has not taken care of the fact that deceased was survived by four dependents while making one-third deduction for his personal expenses out of the total income. Looking to the number of dependents, the learned Tribunal ought to have made one-forth deduction of the income of the deceased for assessing/determining compensation. Thus, while considering the income of the deceased as Rs.45,000/- and after making one-forth deduction against personal expenses and applying multiplier of sixteen, the amount of compensation under the head “Loss of Dependency” can be worked out as follows:- Rs.45,000 x ¼ Rs.11, 250/- Rs.45,000 – Rs.11,250 Rs.33,750/- Rs.33,750 x 16 Rs.5,40,000/- 12. For making one-forth deduction for personal expenses keeping in view number of dependents of the deceased, reliance can be profitably made to a decision of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. For making one-forth deduction for personal expenses keeping in view number of dependents of the deceased, reliance can be profitably made to a decision of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ (2009) 6 SCC 121 ], wherein the Court held:- “Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, onefourth (1/4th) where the number the number of family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 13. The appellants have also ventilated their grievances against the impugned award by urging that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future prospects. According to appellants, deceased was regularly filing income tax returns and at the time of death was on a sale tour returning from Delhi in his own Indigo car, which shows that he was financially well off and his future prospects were bright. Besides that, it has been the case of the claimants that deceased was partner of Bikaner Marble Factory and engaged in marketing business for other industries and deriving income of salary and earnings from other sources also and there were fair chances of enhancement of his income in times to come. In substance, appellants contention is that income graph of the deceased would have been in ascending order had this untimely calamity not occurred. 14. Well it is true that the deceased may be a self-employed individual but it is difficult to comprehend that there was no chance of enhancement in his earnings from the job/business which he was carrying on. By taking into account the annual income of the deceased and deducting one-forth for personal expenses, I deem it just and appropriate to allow 40% increase towards future prospects of the deceased by relying on decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. By taking into account the annual income of the deceased and deducting one-forth for personal expenses, I deem it just and appropriate to allow 40% increase towards future prospects of the deceased by relying on decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi [ 2017 (13) SCALE 12 ] for doing substantial justice in the matter and making the quantum of compensation just and reasonable. Accordingly, the appellants are declared entitled for 40% of the earnings of the deceased as future prospects. After calculation, the amount for future prospects comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. 15. The appellants have also questioned the adequacy of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal for loss of consortium to the spouse as well as loss of love, care and guidance to children. Therefore, the Court feels that this aspect requires threadbare examination. 16. In legal parlance, “consortium” is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love care and protection etc., the spouse is entitle to get, has to be compensated appropriately. Thus, awarding of compensation to appellant under the head of “loss of consortium” is increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. 17. The appellants Nos.2 & 3 have been deprived of love, care, affection and guidance of their father, on account of untimely death of their father, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, the amount awarded to appellants No.2 to 3 under the head of “loss of love & affection” cannot be a mere pittance, therefore, the compensation awarded to each child deserves enhancement. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case each children of the deceased are declared entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each for loss of love and affection, totalling to Rs.50,000 under this head. 18. Similarly appellant No.4 & 5, have lost their young son, who could have served and helped them during their old age had he not died in the accident and they are deprived of company, care and nursing during evening phase of their life which cannot be measured in terms of money. Therefore, amount of compensation awarded under this head is also enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for each of the them amounting to Rs.40,000/-. 19. Therefore, amount of compensation awarded under this head is also enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- for each of the them amounting to Rs.40,000/-. 19. The learned Tribunal has awarded funeral expenses only to the tune of Rs.5,000/- which, in the considered opinion of this Court, too is inadequate and is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. 20. Grievance of the appellant pertaining to rate of interest awarded deserves consideration in the light of prevailing interest rates at the time of passing of the impugned judgment and award as per RBI Guidelines. In the year 2012, Benchmark interest rates as per RBI guidelines was approx. 9% with a further discretion to the respective banks to vary the same considering the nature of banking transaction. Be that as it may, the SBI was allowing interest on year fixed deposits @9% per annum in the year 2012. Therefore, I feel persuaded to enhance rate of interest allowed by the learned Tribunal on the awarded compensation including the enhanced amount as per the rates allowed by SBI. 21. Thus, the Court modifies the impugned judgment and award and reassess the quantum of compensation as under:- S. No Head Amount (Rs.) awarded by Tribunal Reassessed Amount (Rs.) Enhanced Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of Dependency 3,84,000/- 5,40,000/- 1,56,000/- 2 Future Prospects Nil 2,16,000/- 2,16,000/- 3 Loss of Consortium 10,000/- 40,000/- 40,000/- 4 Loss of Love and Affection to Appellant No.2 & 3 10,000/- 50,000/- 30,000/- 5 Deprivation of Care & Nursing to respondent 4 & 5 10,000/- 40,000/- 30,000/- 6 Funeral expenses 5,000/- 15,000/- 10,000/- Total 4,19,000/- 9,01,000/- 4,82,000/- 22. In view of foregoing discussions, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part and the they are declared entitled for enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,82,000/- as indicated in the foregoing para. The enhanced as well as amount awarded by learned Tribunal amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date filing of claim petition. Respondents are directed to ensure payment of enhanced amount with interest to the appellants and arrears of interest on the amount determined and awarded by the Tribunal, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.