JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J. - Being not satisfied by the compensation awarded by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Sira in MVC No.414/2016 dated 01.06.2017, claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal for seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred, as per their status before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal are that on 11.03.2016 at about 3.15 P.M., one Mr.Munawar Khan (deceased) was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 06 EN 6968 as a pillion rider and it was being driven by one Mr.Dadapeer slowly on the left side of the road and when said motor cycle reached Navami Hytech Nursery near KSRTC bus depot at Sira Town, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.17.F.1187 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the motor cycle and as a result said Munawar Khan sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to said injuries. The claimant-appellants submit that deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 33 years and he was working as mason and also vending milk and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and deceased being the only earning member in their family, the untimely death of the deceased has resulted in claimant-appellants being deprived of his income as they were entirely depending upon earnings of the deceased. It was also contended that they suffered great mental shock and agony apart from loss of dependency. Hence, claimant-appellants filed MVC No.414/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Sira, seeking compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. 4. After service of notice, respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed a detailed statement of objections and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent contended that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent manner of the rider of the above said motor cycle and as such, the respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, tribunal has framed following issues: 1. The respondent contended that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent manner of the rider of the above said motor cycle and as such, the respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 11.03.2016 at about 3.15 p.m. when the husband of petitioner No.1 by name Munawar Khan was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA.06.EN.6968 as a pillion rider and it was riding by one Dadapeer @ Dada Khalandar slowly on the left side of the road and when the above said motorcycle reached in front of Navami Hytech Nursery, near KSRTC bus Depot at Sira Town, at that point of time the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA.17.F.1187 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the above said motor cycle and as a result of it the above said Munawar Khan sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate, from whom? 3. What order or award? 6. In order to prove the factual aspect of the case, the claimant No.1-appellant No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The respondent has examined their driver as RW1 and also got marked one document as Ex.R1 and closed their evidence. 7. Tribunal, after considering the material on record and submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, by its judgment and award dated 01.06.2017 awarded compensation of Rs.11,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. Not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the MACT, claimant-appellants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement on the ground that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as he was doing masonary work, however, tribunal has taken the income Rs.7,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. Claimant-appellants have further submitted that deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident and has left two minor children aged about 5 and 2 years respectively and depriving them of parental love and affection. In that view of the matter, appellants contend that compensation awarded under the conventional heads requires to be enhanced. 8. Claimant-appellants have further submitted that deceased was aged 33 years at the time of accident and has left two minor children aged about 5 and 2 years respectively and depriving them of parental love and affection. In that view of the matter, appellants contend that compensation awarded under the conventional heads requires to be enhanced. 8. We have heard Sri.Shantharaj.K, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the entire case papers and the original records secured from the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the MACT on issue No.1 does not call for interference in this appeal. Since the claimant-appellants have produced Exs.P1-copy of FIR, P2- copy of complaint, P3-copy of charge sheet, P4-Mahazar, P5- Rough sketch, P6-Inquest Report, P7-P.M report, P8-IMV report which would clearly establish the fact that driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.17 F 1187 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased and as a result of which Munawar Khan succumbed to the injuries. 10. In order to establish the case for enhancement for compensation Sri.K.Shantharaj, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that award of Rs.11,90,000/- passed by the tribunal is meager which requires to be enhanced by this Court. He further submits that, income of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.15,000/- per month, however, tribunal failed to appreciate the said fact, while calculating the award of loss of dependency. 11. Per contra, Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this Court. 12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under different heads as under: 01 Loss of dependency 10,80,000.00 02 Love & Filial Affection 1,00,000.00 03 Funeral Expenses & Transportation 10,000.00 04 Consortium 50,000.00 05 Interim compensation deducted - 50,000.00 Total 11,90,000.00 13. We have gone through entire records of the tribunal and have re-assessed the compensation awarded by the tribunal as the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side for reasons indicated hereinafter. We have gone through entire records of the tribunal and have re-assessed the compensation awarded by the tribunal as the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side for reasons indicated hereinafter. Having taking note of the fact that deceased was working as mason and he being aged 33 years at the time of death as per Exs.P6 and P7, we are of the considered view that judgment and award of MACT is liable to be modified and just compensation is required to be awarded to the claimant-appellants in accordance with the law as expounded by this Court and the Apex Court in various decisions. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Satinder Kaur and others disposed on 30.06.2020 in C.A.No.2705 of 2020 and connected appeal has considered the relevant principles for assessment of compensation in cases of death as evolved by the judicial dicta, at para 8 of the judgment, it has been held: 'The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are : (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependants left behind by the deceased and (ii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.' 15. The tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month which is on the lower side as the deceased was working as mason and died at his prime age of 33 years. The accident is of the year 2016. In fact, four (4) persons were dependent on him. Even if wages is considered as Rs.300/- per day, it would be Rs.9,000/- per month from milk vending business he would have earned not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, if income of deceased is considered at Rs.12,000/- per month, same would be reasonable. The proper multiplier applicable as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is 16. The deceased has left behind his wife, two minor children and mother. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma stated supra, 1/4th of his income needs to be deducted towards personal expenses. The deceased has left behind his wife, two minor children and mother. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma stated supra, 1/4th of his income needs to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, when 1/3rd of total monthly income i.e. Rs.9,000/- is deducted, the monthly income of the deceased which is lost to dependants/claimants would be Rs.9,000/- per month and same is to be taken for the purposes of assessing loss of dependency. 16. A constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 held that the standards fixed in Sarla Verma (supra) would provide guidance for appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses and accordingly, evaluated all the judicial precedents on the issue of future prospects including Sarla Verma (supra) and devised a fixed standard for granting future prospects. In view of following the said dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, addition of 40% of established income would warrant if the deceased was below the age of 40 and as such, total loss of dependency of the claimant-appellants can be calculated as Rs.12,600 x 12x16=Rs.24,19,200. 17. In view of untimely death of husband of appellant No.1, Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the 1st appellant (wife), Rs.40,000/- each towards the appellants No.2 and 3 (children) and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards Filial consortium towards 4th appellant (mother) is just and proper as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kaur Case stated supra. 18. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation which requires to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the claimant-appellants is as under: 01 Loss of dependency 24,19,200.00 02 Loss of consortium -Wife Parental consortium - 2 children 40,000.00 80,000.00 03 Loss of estate 15,000.00 04 Filial compensation - mother 40,000.00 05 Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body 15,000.00 Total 26,09,200.00 Interim compensation Less: awarded by MACT and paid by respondent to the claimants 50,000.00 Total 25,59,200.00 The claimant-appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.25,59,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.11,90,000/- awarded by the MACT and thereby the respondent is solely liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant-appellants for their actionable negligence. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following: JUDGMENT 1. Appeal is allowed in part. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following: JUDGMENT 1. Appeal is allowed in part. 2. Judgment and Award passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira dated 01.06.2017 in MVC No.414/2016 stands substituted by awarding total compensation of Rs.25,59,200/- which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. (on enhanced compensation) from the date of petition till date of payment of deposit whichever is earlier. 3. It is made clear that interest 6% p.a. is awarded only on the enhanced compensation and interest awarded @ 9% p.a. by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.11,90,000/- stands undisturbed. Registry to re-transmit the record to the jurisdictional Tribunal. Respondent to pay or deposit the award amount within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.