ORDER : 1. Present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act for short) is preferred by the appellants – original claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them under judgment and award dated 9.1.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), District Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 349 of 2016. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 10.9.2016 at about 3 p.m., the deceased Bhimdevsinh Gohil had parked his motorcycle near his field and was standing near his motorcycle. At that time, the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. GJ-14X-1010 came from his behind at very high and excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the steering, as a result, the truck dashed with the deceased Bhimdevsinh Gohil causing serious injuries. The deceased Bhimdevsinh Gohil died on the spot as a consequence of serious injury. The offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 184, 177 of M.V. Act came to be registered with Ghogha Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 40 of 2016 against the respondent No.1 the driver of the offending truck. 2.1 The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased Bhimdevsinh Gohil filed M.A.C.P. No. 349 of 2016 against the respondent No.1 driver and insurance company respectively of the offending truck bearing registration No. GJ-14X-1010 to recover a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with 12% interest and cost. 2.2 The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not enter their appearance to contest the claim petition, whereas the respondent No.3 insurance company of the offending truck resisted the claim petition by filing written statement Exh.21. The Tribunal after considering ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.9,52,000/- with 9% interest jointly and severally to the claimants from the date of the petition till payment. The appellants, being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation, have preferred present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 3. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, present appeal is taken up for final disposal as the issue involved in the appeal moves in narrow compass. 4. I have heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants, Mr. Rudra V. Trivedi, learned advocate for Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. 4. I have heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants, Mr. Rudra V. Trivedi, learned advocate for Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 insurance company. 5. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the deceased was having his own agricultural land and was also having cattle. He submits that the deceased was earning Rs.75,000/- per year after meeting of the expenses from his agricultural activity and was also earning good amount by selling milk. He, therefore, submits that as per the say of the appellants, the deceased was earning around Rs.10,000/- per month. However, Tribunal has taken very conservative view in assessing monthly income as Rs.5,000/- per month. He, submits that the Tribunal ought to have at least assessed Rs.7,800/- as monthly income of the deceased. He, further submits that he does not press ground B and C raised in the memo of present appeal. He, submits that the compensation under the head of prospective income and future loss of income needs to be revised and the final compensation needs to be enhanced accordingly. 6. Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 – insurance company submits that the monthly income of the deceased may be revised to Rs.7800/-. However, according to his submission the Tribunal has committed error in calculating prospective income @ 40% which should be 25% in view of the judgment in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethy and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , as the deceased was self-employed and age of the deceased was 43 years. He also submits that the rate of interest (9%) allowed by the tribunal on the compensation is also on higher side and according to his submission, the interest admissible on the compensation, as per current rate of interest ought to be 7.5%. He, submits that in view above, award may be modified accordingly. 7. It emerges from the record that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also having cattle. It also emerges from the record that the deceased was deriving his income from agricultural activity and by selling milk. Though, the claimants asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however, they did not produce any conclusive evidence to buttress their say. It emerges from the record that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also having cattle. It also emerges from the record that the deceased was deriving his income from agricultural activity and by selling milk. Though, the claimants asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however, they did not produce any conclusive evidence to buttress their say. The Tribunal has, therefore, done some guess work and has assessed Rs.5000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Considering overall facts of the case and the year in which the accident occurred i.e. 2016, I am of the view that the Tribunal has adopted a little conservative approach in assessing the monthly income of the deceased and in the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would meet if the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.7800/- as submitted by learned advocate for the appellants. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was an agriculturist and hence he was self-employed. It also emerges from the record that the deceased was aged 43 years at the time of unfortunate accident. It, thus, appears that the Tribunal has fallen in error in assessing the prospective income by adding 40% to the monthly income of the deceased instead of 25%. I am therefore of the view that 25% needs to be added to the monthly income of the deceased for arriving at the prospective income of the deceased. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award. I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads needs to be calculated as under. Compensation As per Award under challenge Calculation in First Appeal (A) Future Loss (i) Actual Income 5000 7800 (ii) Prospective Income 7000(40%) 9750(25% (iii) Deduction of amount spent by the decd. on himself 1750(1/4) 2437.5(1/4) (iv) Future Loss per Annum 5250 x 12 =63000 7312.5 x 12 = 87750 (v) Multiplier 14 14 (A) Future Loss 8,82,000 12,28,500 (B) Conventional Amount 70,000 70,000 Total Compensation 9,52,000 12,98,500 Interest 9% 7.5% 9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the appellants original claimants is enhanced to Rs.12,98,500/- in place of Rs.9,52,000/-. As a consequence, the appellants original claimants are entitled to Rs.3,46,500/- as an additional compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the appellants original claimants is enhanced to Rs.12,98,500/- in place of Rs.9,52,000/-. As a consequence, the appellants original claimants are entitled to Rs.3,46,500/- as an additional compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 10. In view of above, present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 9.1.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 349 of 2016 is hereby modified and the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 12,98,500/- as total compensation in place of Rs.9,52,000/- and the claimants are held entitled to Rs.3,46,500/- as additional compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The respondent No.3 insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the amount of additional compensation with interest in the Tribunal within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.