JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 30.03.2017 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”) Raigarh in Claim (MACT) Case No.27/2016 awarding a compensation of Rs.55,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Pitramti Nishad. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on the date of incident, when the deceased was going to Domanpur on her son-in-law’s motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-11-C-3578, near Timarlaga Sarangarh-Raigarh main road, the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.CG-13-A-3060 driven by respondent No.1/non-applicant No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit them as a result of which deceased Pitramti Nishad died on the spot. A claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants who happen to be the legal heirs of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.18,43,000/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 57 years, she was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by selling namkin and running hotel in weekly market. 3. Pleading of the claimants have, however, been denied by the respondent/insurance company. 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal, after holding that the Claimants are not entitled to receive compensation under the head loss of dependency, has awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the appellants/claimants. Hence this appeal for enhancement. 5. Counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding adequate compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal has also not considered the loss of future prospect and loss of dependency in the present case. It has been also submitted that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also quite inadequate and deserves to be suitably enhanced. It is next submitted that all the legal heirs of deceased have right to apply for compensation. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Others. reported in (2020) 1 ACC 130 . 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the award impugned. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Birender and Others. reported in (2020) 1 ACC 130 . 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the award impugned. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Tribunal recording the finding that appellant No.1 is married son of deceased and appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are married daughter of the deceased and thus held that they were not dependent on the deceased and awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/- in favour of the appellants. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance (supra), held in para 15 and 19, which read thus :- “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claims towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural laborers on contract basis and were earning meager income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. 19. Reverting to the determination of compensation amount, it is noticed that the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation amount on the basis of net-salary drawn by the deceased for the relevant period as Rs.16,918/- per month, while taking note of the fact that her gross-salary was Rs.23,123/- per month (presumably below taxable income). Concededly, any deduction from the gross-salary other than tax amount cannot be reckoned. Concededly, any deduction from the gross-salary other than tax amount cannot be reckoned. In that, the actual salary less tax amount ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for determining the compensation amount, in light of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 59.3 of Pranay Sethi (supra).” 12. True, the claimants/appellants pleaded that deceased used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month by selling namkin in the house and running hotel at weekly market, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.9,000/- per month. Neither any witness has been examined to substantiate this plea of the claimants/appellants. Therefore, this Court do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the appellants' evidence about the income of the deceased. However, the learned Tribunal has gone wrong in not calculating the monthly income of the deceased, which requires consideration. 13. Considering that deceased Pitarmati Nishad, on the date of accident, was aged about 60 years and at the time of incident she was selling namkin in her house, this Court is of the opinion that she could have easily earned Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 12.07.2017 by selling namkin in home and running hotel at weekly market. This Court, therefore, proposes to recompute the compensation taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The deceased was widow and 60 years of old at the time of accident. Hence, 10% of the actual income of the deceased towards future prospect is to be added. Having done so, the amount comes to Rs.39,600/-. Further, there being three claimants, the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from her annual income would be just and proper. Accordingly, by deducting 1/3rd (39,600x1/3 = Rs.13,200/-) from the annual income of the deceased, the claimants' dependency is assessed at Rs.26,400/- (39,600 – 13,200) per annum. 14. Looking to the age of the deceased and three claimants/appellants, at the time of accident, this Court of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in not applying the multiplier in this case. In fact, for the age group of 56 to 60 years, multiplier of 9 has to be applied as per the Schedule. As per decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. In fact, for the age group of 56 to 60 years, multiplier of 9 has to be applied as per the Schedule. As per decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , after application of multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency is assessed to Rs.26,400/- x 9 = Rs.2,37,600/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- under the head love & affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively, which in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , is not proper. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. Thus, keeping in view all these things, above discussion and in view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. The claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court Income Nil Rs.3,000/- Future Prospect Nil Rs.300/- (i.e. 10% of the income) Deduction towards living and personal expenses Nil Rs.1,100/- (i.e. 1/3rd of Rs.3,000/- + Rs.300/-) Total Income Nil Rs.2,200/- (Rs.3300-Rs.1100) Yearly Income Nil Rs.26,400/- (Rs.2,200 x 12) Multiplier applied Nil 9 Loss of future income Nil Rs.2,37,600/- (Rs.2,200 x 12 x 9) Towards Love and Affection Rs.45,000/- Rs.40,000/- For Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.5000/- Rs.15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.55,000/- Rs.3,07,600/- 15. Thus, the total compensation including the amount awarded on conventional heads comes to Rs.3,07,600/- (2,37,600 + 70,000/-) for which the claimants are entitled to receive as compensation for the death of deceased Pitramti Bai. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.55,000/-, after deducting the same the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.2,54,600/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. 16. Appeal is thus allowed in part with the modification in the award impugned as indicated above.