JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is filed by the original claimants challenging the judgement and award dated 09/05/2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Patan in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.5640 of 2002, wherein claim petition filed by the original claimants came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- was awarded with running interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. In relation to negligence, tribunal has held driver of truck No.RJ-27-G-2283 as sole negligent for occurrence of the accident. 2. Short facts, arising from the record, are as under: 2.1. On 11/09/1998, Sodha Savaisinh Chamansinh was standing on kachha road of Highway, near Sabdalpura Taluka: Radhanpur, District: Patan, where he was working as security guard. At that time, truck bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-2283 came in rash and negligent manner from Radhanpur side and dashed with Savaisinh (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), for which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. For the said accident, a FIR - Exh.27 was lodged and panchnama - Exh.28 was drawn. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was case of the original claimants that accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of truck No.RJ-27-G-2283, The deceased was working as security guard at Santalpur Clay Pvt. Ltd. at Village: Santalpur and was earning monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. Upon filing of the claim petition, Notices were issues respondent appeared and filed its written statement. Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, decided the issue of negligence in favour of the original claimants by holding driver of the truck, sole negligent for the accident. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- under different heads, as under : Loss of future income Rs.3,12,000/- Loss of spousal consortium Rs.20,000/- Loss of parental consortium Rs.25,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.3,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.2,000/- Total compensation Rs.3,62,000/- 3. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement. 4. Heard Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.2-insurance company. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement. 4. Heard Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No.2-insurance company. Since the insurance company has not disputed the issuance of policy to the truck and liability not being denied, presence of other respondents is not necessary for deciding this appeal. Record and proceedings of the case is secured. This appeal has been disposed of, keeping in mind that the deceased died at the young age, who was sole earning member of his family. 5. Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal is in error in not awarding compensation to the original claimants towards future prospective income. He submitted that as the deceased was aged between 30 to 35 years, the original claimants would be entitled to 40% rise towards future prospective income. As the deceased was survived by 6 dependents (mother died during the pendency of the claim petition), 1/5th ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. He further submitted that considering age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 would be applicable instead of 13. In relation to consortium, he submitted that as the deceased was survived by spouse and 5 minor children, original claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- to each dependent as consortium. In support of his submission, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and United India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 . Further for compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, he submitted to enhance the same. In support of his submission, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, for the respondent-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, relying upon deposition of Mahipatsinh Jadeja – Manager of the company, where the deceased was working, has correctly assessed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, for the respondent-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, relying upon deposition of Mahipatsinh Jadeja – Manager of the company, where the deceased was working, has correctly assessed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. In relation to future prospective income, he fairly submitted that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the original claimants would be entitled for 40% rise. 1/5th amount is to be deduced towards personal expenses and multiplier of 16 would be applicable instead of 13. He fairly submitted to enhance the compensation accordingly. In relation to compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, he fairly submitted to enhance the same. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. Following points would rise for consideration : (i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in sum of Rs.3,62,000/- is just and reasonable compensation? And if not, then to what extent, it is required to be enhanced and under what head? (ii) What order? RE: Point (i) The facts relating to road traffic accident occurred on 11/09/1998, the issuance of policy and the same being in force on the date accident, are not in dispute. Since it has been dealt with by the Tribunal extensively, the same are not discussed herein. Negligence held by the Tribunal has not been disputed by either party. Upon re-appreciation of evidence, it is noticed that Mahipatsinh Jadeja, a Manager of Santalpur Clay Pvt. Ltd., where the deceased was working, in his deposition at Exhi-34, has stated that the deceased was working as security guard in their factory situated at Radhanpur Road and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Further in the cross-examination by the insurance company, nothing contrary came on record. Therefore, in my opinion, Tribunal is correct in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Further in the cross-examination by the insurance company, nothing contrary came on record. Therefore, in my opinion, Tribunal is correct in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. As per Post Mortem report at Exh-32, the deceased was between of 30 to 35 years of age and therefore, in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav V/s. Naresh Kumar reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424 and Pranay Sethi (supra), the original claimants would be entitled to 40% rise towards future prospective income. Considering his age, multiplier of 16 will be applicable and not 13. As deceased was survived by six dependents (mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition), 1/5th amount would be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the original claimants would be entitled for dependency loss as under : “Rs.3,000/- per month + Rs.1,200/- (40% prospective rise) = Rs.4,200/- per month - Rs.840/- (1/5th dependency) = Rs.3,360/- per month x 12 months = Rs.40,320/- per annum x 16 multiplier (considering age at 38 years) = Rs.6,45,120/-”. 8. In relation to consortium, this Court is in agreement with the submission advanced by learned advocate for the original claimants, which has been fairly accepted by learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, that original claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal and parental consortium (widow and 5 minors). Further, the original claimants would be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 9. The original claimants thus would be entitled to get total compensation as under : Loss of dependency Rs.6,45,120/- Loss of spousal consortium Rs.40,000/- Loss of parental consortium Rs.2,00,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,15,120/- 10. In view of the above, following order is passed:- ORDER (1) First Appeal is partly allowed. (2) The appellants – original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,15,120/-. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,62,000/-, the respondent – Insurance company shall deposit the balance amount of compensation of Rs.5,53,120/- [Rs.9,15,120/- - Rs.3,62,000/-] with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with proportionate costs, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation, with the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (3) It is needless to say that the original claimants are entitled for balance amount and the same shall be disbursed to the original claimants through RTGS. The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal shall remained unaltered. (4) Deficit Court Fees, if any, is to be paid by the appellants within a period of four weeks, failing which, the amount shall be recovered from the amount to be deposited by the insurance company. (5) Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.