JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, original claimants, i.e. appellants herein, have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 8.9.2008 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1684 of 1997 insofar as it relates to quantum being inadequately granted. So, in essence, present First Appeal is for seeking enhancement of amount of compensation which has been awarded pursuant to an order dated 8.9.2008. 2. The case of the appellants- claimants is that the husband of appellant No.1 i.e. Dahyabhai Chitabhai Vasava (deceased) was traveling as a pillion rider on 6.6.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. and going from Vaghodia to Vadodara with his friend, i.e. respondent No.1, who was driving the scooter bearing registration No.GJ-6 HH 5571. The scooter was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner with full speed and he having lost control over the steering dashed with a tree, as a result of which, deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on spot. The appellants prayed for compensation on account of untimely accidental death and filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara for seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.7 lakh by praying that respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Upon summons being served, the opponents- respondent herein made necessary representation before learned Tribunal and after considering oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, learned Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the claim petition by awarding an amount Rs.3,61,000/- as compensation together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till realization and thereby partly allowed the claim petition. Operative part of the said order dated 8.9.2008 reads as under:- :: ORDER :: 1. The claim petition is partly allowed against the opponent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The opponent Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to pay Rs.3,61,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Sixty One Thousand only) as compensation to the applicants jointly & severally together with proportionate cost and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 3. The interim amount of compensation, if any, paid or deposited under the principle of NO FAULT LIABILITY, will be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded in this final adjudication. 4. 3. The interim amount of compensation, if any, paid or deposited under the principle of NO FAULT LIABILITY, will be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of compensation awarded in this final adjudication. 4. Amount of COURT FEES, if recoverable be recovered from the awarded amount of compensation and the same to be taxed as costs of the petition. 5. The opponents are directed to deduct the Income Tax, if it is levied and produced the T.D.S. Certificate along with the payment and produced details year wise calculation for this deduction before the Court. 6. The disbursement order will be made after depositing the amount of compensation. 7. Opponents to bear their own cost. 8. Award be drawn accordingly. 4. The claimants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said less amount of compensation as against the claim of Rs.7 lakh, have preferred this First Appeal by raising multiple issues and prayed for enhancement which appeal came to be admitted vide order dated 13.5.2009 and now it has come up for consideration before this Court for its ultimate adjudication. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing on behalf of the appellants- complainants has submitted that learned Tribunal has grossly erred in considering the income of the deceased just at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month as against minimum of Rs.5,000/- per month though it has been submitted that deceased was having three sources of income. The income which has been believed by the Tribunal is thoroughly disproportionate. It has been submitted that deceased husband was having a truck bearing registration No.GRY 3786 and registration book of the said truck was also produced before the Tribunal. It has been submitted that the truck was being run by giving it on rent and regular income was generated out of it. In addition thereto, deceased husband was also possessing agricultural land and by growing vegetables, out of said agricultural operation was also getting income and further, deceased husband was having business of catering tea and was also earning out of it and as such, learned advocate has submitted on account of these three sources of income, which deceased was having, a minimum of Rs.5000/- per month was to be assumed by learned Tribunal and that having not been considered, a serious error is committed. It has been further submitted that on the contrary, regular monthly income was to the tune of Rs.15000/-, but even after deducting expenditure, at throwaway figure also, roughly income of Rs.5000/- per month deserves to be considered. So a serious error is committed. Even apart from that, while considering the quantum, multiplier has also been wrongly applied. Deceased was of 36 years of age at the time when accident took place and as such, instead of adopting 16 years multiplier, learned Judge has erroneously applied 14 years multiplier and thereby compensation has been determined. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Modi has further submitted that even for the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection also, no proper amount has been awarded and apart from that, in view of the fact that now after the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranav Shetty, the other aspects ought to have considered. Even each of the legal heirs is entitled to Rs.40,000/- by way of consortium and that having not been considered, the amount which has been determined is too inadequate and as such, has requested that in the interest of justice, proportionate amount may be awarded, hence requested to allow the appeal. 7. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh appearing on behalf of the contesting Insurance Company has submitted that this is a case where there is no evidence worth the name to support the income which has been stated. In fact, in cross-examination, appellant No.1 has clearly admitted that to support the issue about income, which has been projected in the claim petition, she does not have any evidence to support and as such, on the basis of the material on record and on the basis of the oral testimony, the income which has been arrived at Rs.3000/- per month is just and proper. So far as other claim, which has been stated, learned advocate has submitted that proportionate amount at the best can be considered, but compensation which has been arrived at on the basis of income of Rs.3000/- can never be said to be unjust or improper, more particularly when there is no evidence to support the income which has been stated that of Rs.15000/-. In fact, for supporting the claim of Rs.5000/- income per month, there is no remote evidence, hence the view may not be substituted. In fact, for supporting the claim of Rs.5000/- income per month, there is no remote evidence, hence the view may not be substituted. Since this being an appeal in respect of quantum issue only and Insurance Company has not challenged or questioned the order which has been passed by learned Tribunal, on any other ground the scope left it open for the Court is only to consider as to whether this quantum which has been determined is just and proper or not, and is in consonance with the well settled proposition of reasonable amount of compensation, hence that extent, learned advocates have requested the Court to consider respective submissions and dispose of the appeal. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties to the proceedings and having gone through the relevant material emerging from the record, it is not in dispute that husband of appellant No.1 has died on account of vehicular accident and succumbed to the injuries on the spot and since the opponent Insurance Company before this Court has not agitated with regard to liability of Insurance Company, it has resisted the appeal only on the issue of quantum. 9. Death has occurred on account of the scooter driven by opponent No.1 in a very rash and negligent manner and on account of such accident, deceased died on the spot. With a view to substantiate the claim put forth by the claimants in addition to documentary evidence, appellant No.1 being widow of deceased, namely Kapilaben Dahyabhai Vasava who got herself examined at Exh.22, has clearly asserted in her deposition that deceased Dahyabhai was having a truck bearing registration No.GRY-3786 which was purchased on 21.7.1995 for the purpose of transporting sand, kapchi and other material and same was being let out for such transport work and income was generated out of it. Further, she has also deposed that at Madoghar road, deceased was running a tea stall and out of which, was earning Rs.7000/- per month and since said tea stall was near the bus stand and surrounded by four medical clinics, it was running as a profitable business and income generated out of truck was approximately Rs.500/- per day. Further, she has also deposed that at Madoghar road, deceased was running a tea stall and out of which, was earning Rs.7000/- per month and since said tea stall was near the bus stand and surrounded by four medical clinics, it was running as a profitable business and income generated out of truck was approximately Rs.500/- per day. In addition to it, there was an agricultural field in which vegetables were being cultivated and out of which, an amount of Rs.5000/- per month was being generated and looking to the health of the deceased, he was expected to live around and upto the age of 80 years as he was well built and was not having any vices or bad habits and as such based upon such income, a claim was put forth. 10. In cross-examination, the widow being illiterate lady had no material to indicate the exact income proof, but certainly she indicated that deceased was having a truck as also a tea stall and agricultural operation to some extent and as such, said fact having not been disproved, it appears that income of deceased was from three such sources as has been culled out from the evidence and so far as truck ownership is concerned, RTO registration book was already placed on record which fact is not in dispute. 11. Further, it also appears that the deceased was aged about 36 years at the time when the accident took place and as such, in view of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the chart related to applying multiplier, if considered, multiplier 15 would be normal multiplier to be adopted and as such, the order which has been passed to determine compensation deserves to be modified in the interest of justice. 12. From the record as also from the order, it appears that prospective income ratio ought to have been properly applied and in addition thereto, the amount which has been quantified for funeral expenditure as well as loss of estate is also on a much lower side. 12. From the record as also from the order, it appears that prospective income ratio ought to have been properly applied and in addition thereto, the amount which has been quantified for funeral expenditure as well as loss of estate is also on a much lower side. It further appears that amount of Rs.40,000/- by way parental consortium is also required to be awarded in view of the settled principle of law on the issue of just and reasonable compensation and as such, amount of Rs.40,000/- for spousal consortium to appellant No.1 and parental consortium to each of minors at Rs.40,000/- each deserves to be awarded and as such to the aforesaid extent, case is made out by the appellants to enhance the amount of compensation. The aforesaid amount of Rs.40,000/- each is found to be reasonable keeping in view the principle enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL SC 66509 [= 2020 (9) SCC 644 ], and as such, the appellants are entitled to such amount as indicated above. 13. It appears, as stated above, that an amount of Rs.3000/- which has been derived is also not appearing to be just and proper in view of the fact that from the record, it is emerging that three sources of income were available with the deceased at the time when the accident took place and as such if a minimum figure is to be arrived at for per month income, then Rs.5000/- would be a just and reasonable income per month which can be assumed. Simply because an illiterate lady has not been able to put forth concrete piece of evidence to substantiate the income, a paltry amount of Rs.3000/- per month cannot be assessed, especially when from the record, it is clearly emerging that deceased was having a truck which was used for transporting the building material, i.e. sand, kapchi, etc. Further, on the main road, a tea stall was also being run which area was surrounded by bus stand as well as three medical clinics and further was having an agricultural operation. Hence, Rs.5000/- per month can be a minimum just figure to determine an amount of monthly income and as such, calculation on the basis of such deserves to be undertaken while arriving at a figure of just compensation. Hence, Rs.5000/- per month can be a minimum just figure to determine an amount of monthly income and as such, calculation on the basis of such deserves to be undertaken while arriving at a figure of just compensation. When that be so, in considered opinion of this Court, the order deserves to be modified. 14. The evidence which has been led by the Insurance Company and the stand taken before this Court in which dispute was projected qua the amount of compensation and since no other aspect was agitated in the present proceedings, the stand of Insurance Company for income proof is not believable. As such, monthly income derived was not possible to be accepted by this Court since, as stated above, three sources of income are emerging from the record. Hence, applying the aforesaid circumstances and applying principle of just and reasonable compensation, impugned order deserves to be modified. 15. As indicated above, a case is made out by the appellants to seek enhancement. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the principle of just and reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Pawaia & Ors., v. Ashraf Ali & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online (SC) 1083, the Court is of the opinion that to some extent the amount which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. So far as spouse consortium and parental consortium is concerned, an amount of Rs.40,000/- also deserves to be added as indicated above for each of the appellant and as such spouse and parental consortium comes to Rs.1,60,000/- and further on the basis of the principle of reasonable and fair compensation, loss of estate as well as funeral expenditure also deserves to be considered and Court deems it proper to award the same to the extent of Rs.15,000/- on each of this head. Hence, in overall consideration of the material on record and in view of the principle propounded, amount comes to Rs.11,75,000/- and out of the same, amount already awarded if deducted of Rs.3,61,000/-, total enhancement comes to Rs.8,14,000/- as per the following chart and to this extent, Court is of the opinion that First Appeal deserves to be allowed. Income Rs.5,000/- + 40% prospective Rs.2,000/- Rs.7,000/- 1/4th Personal Exp. Rs.1,750/- Rs.5,250/- 12 months x 12 Rs. Income Rs.5,000/- + 40% prospective Rs.2,000/- Rs.7,000/- 1/4th Personal Exp. Rs.1,750/- Rs.5,250/- 12 months x 12 Rs. 63,000/- Multiplier 15 years Rs.9,45,000/- Spouse consortium Rs. 40,000/- Parental consortium(4 x 40,000) Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 45,000/- Funeral Exp. Rs. 15,000/- Rs.11,75,000/- Already awarded Rs. 3,61,000/- Total Enhancement Rs.8,14,000/- 16. Hence, the following order:- ORDER : (1) First Appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. (2) Judgment and order dated 8.9.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (AUXI) Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1684 of 1998 is hereby modified and opponent Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to pay Rs.8,14,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Fourteen Thousand only) in addition to what has been already awarded as compensation to the appellants jointly and severally together with proportionate costs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of present order till realization on additional amount of compensation as awarded. (3) Interim amount of compensation, if any paid or deposited under the principle of ‘No Fault Liability’, will be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of compensation as determined in the present order. (4) Amount of Court fees if recoverable be recovered from the amount of compensation and to be taxed as costs of this petition. (5) Rest of the order is unaltered and award be drawn accordingly.