JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is filed by the original claimants as appellants challenging the judgement and award dated 19/12/2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux-4), Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.505 of 2009, wherein claim petition filed by the original claimants came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.5,98,500/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 2. Brief facts, arising from the record, are as under : On 10/06/2009 at around 6:00 hours in the morning, Sanjaykumar Manilal Prajapati was going driving a scooter bearing registration No.GJ-2-AE-4138 with his nephew Jaimin as pillion rider. Sanjaykumar was going to the school at Kadi to drop his nephew. When he was coming back and reached near Anand park society, Kinara Cinera at Kadi-Nandasan Highway, a Truck bearing registration No.GJ-14-T- 3295 came in rash and negligent manner with full speed and dashed with scooter of Sanjaykumar Manilal Prajapati (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). Resultantly, the deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries and scummed to death. For the said accident, legal heirs of the deceased as original claimants, filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No.505 of 2009 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. It was case of the original claimants that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the truck. Upon filing of the claim petition, Notices were issued. Respondents appeared and filed their written statements. 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 said accident. In the impugned judgement and award, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,98,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, under different heads, as under: Future loss of income or future dependency loss Rs.5,76,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total compensation Rs.5,98,500/- 3. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement. 4. 10,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total compensation Rs.5,98,500/- 3. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.V.Prajapati, for the appellants-original claimants, learned advocate Mr.Palak Thakkar, for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Since liability has not been denied by respondent No.3, presence of other respondents is not necessary for deciding this appeal and dispensed with. Record and proceedings of the case have been secured and placed before this court for perusal. 5. Mr.A.V.Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal is in error in not assessing the income of the deceased correctly. He further submits that the deceased was doing multiple business like Pan parlour, stationary, cutlery, cold drinks, STD PCO, coin calls telephone booth and snacks parlour and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased was possessing cabin for the aforesaid business and was also paying rent of Rs.2,500/- per month for the said cabin. Further, the deceased was also earning Rs.1,000/- per month as his agricultural income and thus, he was totally earning Rs.1,08,000/- per year. Relying upon the rent agreement exhibited at Exh.37 executed for the lease of cabin, in which, the deceased was doing his business, he submitted that payment of rent of Rs.2,500/- per month, supports the case of the original claimants that he was earning Rs.8,000/- out of the said business. He has also relied upon the deposition of Bababhai Punjabhai Patel at Exh.36, who stated that the deceased was doing multiple business from the cabin, which he was holding on rent and a person doing multiple business at least would earning Rs.8,000/- per month, who was paying rent of Rs.2,500/- per month. Therefore, Tribunal is in error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month only. He further submitted that Tribunal is in error in not awarding 40% rise in future prospective income as per the 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 . He further submitted that Tribunal is in error in not awarding 40% rise in future prospective income as per the 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 . He submitted that the Tribunal is also in error in not awarding compensation under other conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses as per the 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 1211. In relation to consortium, he submitted that original claimants would be entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/- each for four dependents. Learned tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium and therefore the order is erroneous. In support of his submissions, he relied upon decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , as well as in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 . He thus, requested to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6. Per contra, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company submitted that in absence of any income proof, the Tribunal has properly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month as the same was minimum wage applicable in the year of accident. He further submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just compensation, does not call for any interference and thus, submitted to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. 8. It is noticed from rent agreement of the cabin at Exh.37 that rent of Rs.2,500/- per month was fixed for the cabin, in which, the deceased was doing his business. Further deposition at Exh.36 of village person- Bababhai Punjabhai Patel also supports the case of the original claimants that the deceased was possessing cabin and was doing multiple business for his livelihood. It is also noticed that nothing contrary came on record, which suggests that the deceased was not doing business and not earning out of the said business. Further deposition at Exh.36 of village person- Bababhai Punjabhai Patel also supports the case of the original claimants that the deceased was possessing cabin and was doing multiple business for his livelihood. It is also noticed that nothing contrary came on record, which suggests that the deceased was not doing business and not earning out of the said business. Village person namely Bababhai Patel was cross-examined by the respondent- insurance company, however nothing contrary came on record to suggests that the deceased was not earning out of the said business. Therefore, in my opinion, the Tribunal is in error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. The person having cabin in small village would at least earn Rs.5,000/- per month, particularly when the rent of Rs.2,500/- per month was to be paid. Therefore, in my opinion, Rs.5,000/- per month would be appropriate for assessing income of the deceased. As the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident, the original claimants would be entitled for 40% rise towards future prospective income. Moreover, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others (supra), considering age of the deceased as 32 years, multiplier of 16 has been correctly taken by the tribunal. 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the original claimants would be entitled to dependency loss as under: “Rs.5,000/- per month + Rs.2,000/- (40% future prospective rise) = Rs.7,000/- per month – Rs.1,750/- (1/4 towards personal expenses) = Rs.5,250/- per month x 12 months = Rs.63,000/- per annum x 16 multiplier (considering age of the deceased as 32 years) = Rs.10,08,000/-”. 9. In relation to consortium, I am in agreement with the submission advanced by learned advocate for the original claimants, that they would be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Further, the original claimants would be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 10. The original claimants thus would be entitled to get total compensation as under: Loss of Future income Rs.10,08,000/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4 dependent) Rs. 1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs.11,98,000/- 11. In view of the above, following order is passed:- ORDER (1) First Appeal is partly allowed. 10. The original claimants thus would be entitled to get total compensation as under: Loss of Future income Rs.10,08,000/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4 dependent) Rs. 1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs.11,98,000/- 11. 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 get total compensation of Rs.11,98,000/-. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,98,500/-, the respondent – insurance company shall deposit the balance amount of compensation rounded off to Rs.6,00,000/- [Rs.11,98,000/- - Rs.5,98,500/- = Rs.5,99,500/-] with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with proportionate costs, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, with the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (3) The original claimants are entitled for the compensation and the same shall be disbursed to the original claimants through RTGS, after due verification. The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal shall remained unaltered. (4) 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.