JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants – original claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned judgment and award dated 23rd August, 2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) & 16th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1530 of 1999, whereby, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,79,000/- towards the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. 2. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was ordered to be awarded to the deponents. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, this appeal has been filed. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the deceased Ramchandra L.Sugdare was driving his bicycle slowly on his correct side on 22.6.1999. That, Opponent No.1 came from the wrong side driving his ST Bus No. GJ-01-Z-3788 rashly, negligently and carelessly and dashed his bus with the bicycle. Deceased tumbled down from the bicycle and sustained grievous injuries and other bodily injuries due to said accident and died during the treatment at SSG Hospital, Vadodara on 26.6.1999. Hence, the appellants – original claimants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,79,000/- under the different heads as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – G.S.R.T.C. 5. Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while considering the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- . He has further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that deceased was doing paint work and meson work and was earning Rs.300/- per day. Learned Tribunal after considering the above fact ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal committed an error while considering 30% future prospective income and on the basis of Rs.2500/- , learned Tribunal ought to have been considered the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal committed an error while considering 30% future prospective income and on the basis of Rs.2500/- , learned Tribunal ought to have been considered the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the prospective income is required to be considered and looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal ought to have given 50% rise in future prospective income of the deceased on the basis of Rs.9000/- income. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of loss of consortium as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 . Therefore, learned advocate for the appellants has requested this Court to modify the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal. 6. As against that Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 -G.S.R.T.C. has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. She has submitted that so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is no cogent and proper proof or evidence led by the appellants about the income of the deceased and even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. Having considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and proceedings, the issue involved in the present appeal is narrow in compass. (1) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the quantum while determining the income of the deceased or not ? (2) Whether learned Tribunal has committed any error by not awarding just and adequate compensation or not ? (3) Whether Learned Tribunal has committed any error while awarding the amount under the head of consortium ? I answered accordingly. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and also the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. I answered accordingly. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and also the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The amount is to be awarded is just and adequate in favour of the claimants, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in decision (supra), I am of the opinion that learned tribunal has not committed any error but so far as amount awarded under the head of consortium is concerned and under the head of loss of estate and multiplier is concerned, impugned judgement and award deserves to be modified. Therefore, present appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgement and award passed by the learned M.A.C.T.(Aux.) Vadodara is modified to the extent that the amount which is awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of consortium, all the three persons are entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each instead of the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the consortium and Rs.50,000/- towards the head of loss of love, affection and care for the children; loss of estate to parents. In all Rs.1,00,000/-. Instead of that, the appellants- original claimants are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- under the head of consortium as per the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 . So remaining Rs.20,000/- is required to be enhanced. So far as the loss of estate is concerned, there is no award therefore, Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of estate, so far as multiplier is concerned, learned Tribunal has considered 14 multiplier instead of 15. Instead of that, multiplier is also required to be modified 15 instead of 14. Considering the P.M.Note of the deceased, since there was no any other documents to show the age of the deceased. Therefore, learned tribunal has referred and relied upon the P.M.Note for considering the age of the deceased. So considering the said P.M.Note, the age of the deceased is 40. So the multiplier is required to apply 15 instead of 14. Therefore, the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 26,000/- i.e. one multiplier. Therefore, learned tribunal has referred and relied upon the P.M.Note for considering the age of the deceased. So considering the said P.M.Note, the age of the deceased is 40. So the multiplier is required to apply 15 instead of 14. Therefore, the appellants are also entitled for Rs. 26,000/- i.e. one multiplier. Hence, the impugned judgement and award is modified to that extent and the amount which is awarded by the learned Tribunal under these three heads is accordingly modified and the amount awarded by the tribunal is hereby enhanced to the tune of Rs.61,000/- in addition to the amount which is awarded by the learned Tribunal. The same shall carry 6% simple interest from the date of application till final realization. 8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra) I am of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation at Rs.61,000/- plus 6% rise and appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award requires to be substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation and, therefore, the compensation is enhanced under the following heads:- Heads Rupees Income 2500 x 12 months 30,000/- 30% Prospective income 9000/- 39000/- 1/3rd deduction 13000/- 26000 X15 years multiplier 3,90,000/- Consortium and filial consortium 1,20,000/- Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 5,40,000/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal 4,79,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation with 6% interest 61,000/- Accordingly a sum of Rs.61,000/- as additional compensation requires to be awarded which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in addition to Rs.4,79,000/-/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 61,000/- /- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 23.8.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux.) & 16th Additional District Judge, Vadodara is hereby modified and in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.61,000/- as additional amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded which shall be from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. The respondent No.2 - G.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit additional amount of compensation i.e. Rs.61,000/- with 6% interest as early as possible within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After deposit of the additional amount of compensation, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants through RTGS, after proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimants to the Nazir Department of the Court concerned. The appellants are directed to pay deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced amount within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The apportionment and order for disbursement as made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the order shall hold good. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.