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 20/09/2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bharuch Camp at Rajpipla in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1014 of 1989, wherein claim petition filed by the original claimants came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.2,28,500/- was awarded with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Tribunal further directed that original opponent Nos.5 & 6 i.e. owner and insurance company of Truck No.M.W.U-2328 are jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. 2. Brief facts, arising from the record, are as under: On 28/04/1989, Sanabhai @ Chhanabhai was travelling in Truck (dumper) bearing registration No.GTY-6833, which was driven by the driver, who is claimant in MACP No.587 of 1991. When Sanabhai was travelling in truck from Motvan and was going to the village Bhadarva, at that time, on Ankleshwar Rajpipla State High Way, near Gamkuva Bus stand, one truck bearing registration No.MWU-2328 came from opposite direction with full speed in negligent manner and while overtaking, by proceeding towards wrong side, dashed with truck (dumper) No.GTY-6833,, which resulted into an accident. Resultantly, Sanabhai @ Chhanabhai sustained serious injuries and was admitted in the Rajpipla Hospital at the first instance and thereafter, was shifted to SSG Hospital at Vadodara. Sanabhai @ Chhanabhai (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) remained under treatment and thereafter, died in the hospital on 18/06/1989. It was the case of the original claimants that accident occurred on account of sole negligence of driver of truck No.MWU-2328. It is an admitted fact that the deceased remained under treatment from 28/04/1989 to 18/06/1989. For the said accident, legal heirs of the deceased as original claimants, filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1014 of 1989 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Upon filing of the claim petition, Notices were issued. Both insurance companies i.e. respondent No.3- New India Insurance Company - insurer of Truck (Dumper) No.GTY-6833 and respondent No.6 – United India Insurance Company - insurer of truck No.MWU- 2328, filed their written statements. Upon filing of the claim petition, Notices were issued. Both insurance companies i.e. respondent No.3- New India Insurance Company - insurer of Truck (Dumper) No.GTY-6833 and respondent No.6 – United India Insurance Company - insurer of truck No.MWU- 2328, filed their written statements. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, decided the issues as under : In relation of negligence, Tribunal held driver of truck No.MWU-2328 sole negligent for the accident and by the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,28,500/- with proportionate costs and with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Tribunal further directed that original opponent Nos.5 & 6 i.e. owner and insurance company of Truck No.M.W.U-2328 are jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation, under different heads, as under: Future loss of income or future dependency loss Rs.2,04,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 1,000/- Special diet Rs. 1,000/- Transportation Rs. 1,000/- Medical Expenses Rs. 2,000/- Pain, shock & suffering Rs. 10,000/- Total compensation Rs.2,28,500/- 3. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present appeal is filed by the original claimants seeking enhancement. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr.MTM Hakim, for the appellants-original claimants, learned advocate Mr.Palak Thakkar, for respondent No.6- – United India Insurance Company, insurer of truck No.MWU- 2328 and learned advocate Mr.Nagesh Sood for respondent No.3 – New India Insurance Company, insurer of Truck (dumper) No.GTY-6833. Since liability has not been denied by respondent No.6, 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.MTM Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal is in error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month. He submits that the deceased was a labour and doing masonry work at the time of accident and was earning Rs.60/- per day by doing work with Ambica Construction as mason. Therefore, monthly income considered by the tribunal at Rs.1,000/- is not proper. He submits that the deceased was a labour and doing masonry work at the time of accident and was earning Rs.60/- per day by doing work with Ambica Construction as mason. Therefore, monthly income considered by the tribunal at Rs.1,000/- is not proper. In support of his submission, he relied upon statement of Kapilaben – wife of the deceased at Exh-50, who had stated that her husband was earning Rs.60/- per day by doing mason work. He further submitted that in cross-examination, nothing contrary came on record. The Tribunal is also in error in not awarding 40% rise towards 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 the deceased was survived by four dependents (wife and three minor children) and therefore, original claimants would be entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/- each for four dependents. Learned tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and therefore the award 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. In relation to pain, shock and suffering, he submitted that admittedly, the deceased remained under treatment as indoor patent from 28/04/1989 to 18/06/1989 and there were multiple fractures on various parts of body of the deceased. Considering the period of hospitalization, the surgeries done and treatment undertaken by the deceased, he submitted that the tribunal is in error in awarding meager amount towards pain, shock and suffering. Thus, he submitted to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6. Considering the period of hospitalization, the surgeries done and treatment undertaken by the deceased, he submitted that the tribunal is in error in awarding meager amount towards pain, shock and suffering. Thus, he submitted to enhance the compensation accordingly. 6. Per contra, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent No.6 - Insurance Company submitted that in absence of any income proof, the Tribunal has properly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month. In the year of accident i.e. in 1989, minimum wage was Rs.900/- per month and therefore, tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month. He further submitted that the economic condition in the year, in which, accident occurred, is also required to be considered. In relation to consortium, he submitted that respondent Nos.2 & 3 are major when the claim petition was decided and therefore, they are not entitled for consortium. He submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just compensation, does not call for any interference. 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 that the deceased was doing mason work with Ambica Construction was not disputed by the respondent- insurance company. However, there was no documentary evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. In my opinion, for the kind of work the deceased was doing, it would be very difficult to produce any income proof in support of his claim. However, considering the economic condition of the year in which the accident occurred, for a labourer the Tribunal, in my opinion, has correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,000/- per month. Further, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 is required to be considered instead of 17. As the deceased was survived by four dependents at the time of accident, 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. As the deceased was survived by four dependents at the time of accident, 1/4 amount is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the original claimants would be entitled to dependency loss as under: “Rs.1,000/- per month + Rs.400/- (40% future prospective rise) = Rs.1,400/- per month – Rs.350/- (1/4 towards personal expenses) = Rs.1,050/- per month x 12 months = Rs.12,600/- per annum x 16 multiplier (considering age of the deceased as 32 years) = Rs.2,01,600/-”. 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). In relation to pain, shock and suffering, it was not in dispute that the deceased was 32 years age at the time of accident and was treated as indoor patient from 28/04/1989 to 18/06/1989. Considering the period of hospitalization and a person doing labour work, having no means for livelihood, had to remain in bed for more than 2 ½ months for no fault of him and looking to nature of surgeries performed on various parts of body, in my opinion, the original claimants would be entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The original claimants thus would be entitled to get total compensation as under: Loss of Future income Rs.2,01,600/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4 dependents) Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Pain, shock & suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Total compensation Rs.4,91,600/- 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 get total compensation of Rs.4,91,600/-. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,28,500/-, the respondent – insurance company shall deposit the balance amount of compensation to Rs.2,63,100/- [Rs.4,91,600/- - Rs.2,28,500/- = Rs.2,63,100/-] 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) 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.