JUDGMENT : Hemant M. Prachchhak, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants – claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.7), Anjar - Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned judgment and award dated 05.12.2018 passed in M.A.C.P. No.305 of 2015. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 11.05.2001, deceased Karsanbhai Hadhabhai Varchand was returning from Radhanpur to Khengarpar in Armada Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-24-U-61 and at about 1.00 hours, when the jeep was on Radhanpur – Santalpur National Highway Near Manpurgam, at that time a tanker bearing registration No.GJ-01-V-4850 was going ahead of the jeep and in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No.GQY-4473 came from the opposite direction in full speed on wrong side dashed with tanker and tanker dragged towards Radhanpar side and the rear portion of the tanker dashed with the front portion of the jeep, as a result of which, the deceased and others sustained serious injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased i.e. original claimants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants have relied upon the oral as well as documentary evidence as under:- Sr.No. Particulars Exhibit 1. Affidavit for oral evidence of Kanyabhai Karsanbhai Varchand 45, 48, 54 2. Affidavit for oral evidence of Bharu Bhachu Chavda 51 3. Affidavit for oral evidence of Hamira Bhura Varchand 51 4. Complaint 56 5. Panchnama of place of incident 57 6. Inquest panchnama 58 7. Postmortem report 59 8. Receipt of policy of truck No.GQY 4473 60 9. Insurance policy of tanker No.GJ 01 V 4850 61 10. Insurance policy of truck No.GQY 4473 62 11. School leaving certificate of deceased 63 12. Gram Namuna 8 – A 64 13. Gram Namuna No.7 and 12 of land bearing survey no.385/2 65 14. Gram namuna No.7 and 12 of land bearing survey no.347 66 15. Gram namuna No.7 and 12 of land bearing survey no.1653 67 16. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.241 68 17. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.243 69 18. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.186 70 19. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.180 71 20. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.239 72 21. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.241 68 17. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.243 69 18. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.186 70 19. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.180 71 20. Gram namuna No.7 and 17 of land bearing survey no.239 72 21. Purchase receipt issued by Radhakrasha Traders 73 22. Sales notes of deceased Karsan Hadhabhai Varchand, Sarpanch, Village: Panchayat, Rapar 74 23. Sales receipt of Mahendrakumar Chhaganlal and brothers 75 24. Sales receipt of Mahendrakumar Chhaganlal and brothers 76 25. Sales receipt of Nitin brothers 77 26. Noting of the brother of the deceased 78 27. Premium Certificate issued by National Insurance Company Limited ( Vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-12- T-5373) 79 28. Insurance certificate of the Boring Machine Vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-12-T-5373 80 29. Notings showing the persons whose work was done during the time of the deceased Karshanbhai and the bills 81 30. Bills book of Gurukrapa Borewell 82 31. Certificate of Tax paid of Vehicle No.GJ-12-V-9394 83 32. National Permit of the Truck bearing registration No.GJ12-V-9394 84 33. Death certificate of Bhura Bijal 85 34. Closing purshish of claimant 86 35. Closing Purshish of opponent No.3 87 36. Closing Purshish of opponent No.6 and 8 88 4. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- under the different heads. 5. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was ordered to be awarded to the deponents. Not being satisfied with the compensation amount, this appeal has been filed. 6. Heard Mr.Hemant Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.Yogi Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 – New India Assurance Company Limited and Mr.Nagesh Sood, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 – National Insurance Company Limited. 7. Mr.Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. He has submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting meager amount of Rs.40,000/- and in granting Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. He has submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. He has submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting meager amount of Rs.40,000/- and in granting Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. He has urged to allow the appeal and modify the impugned judgment and award. 8. As against that Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and Mr.Sood, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 have supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. They have 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. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, following questions arise in this appeal. (a) Whether the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased in its true and proper spirit or not? (b) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding the loss of consortium to the legal heirs of the deceased or not? 10. The Tribunal, while considering the documentary evidence, has committed an error while determining the income of the deceased though the evidence produced with regard to the ownership of boring machine and the truck in the name of the deceased and the deceased has having agriculture land in the joint ownership. So far as the consortium is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has committed an error in granting loss of consortium and so far as the remaining appellants is concerned, the appellants no.2 and 3 are entitled to loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. 11. We have 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. 11. We have 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. From the record, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium while deciding the claim petition, however, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satindar Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Somwati and other reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the consortium is required to be considered under three categories while awarding the amount of compensation and, therefore, the appellants no.2 and 3 are also entitled to loss of consortium. 12. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 , the appellants can recover the amount of compensation from either of the Insurance Company as there is joint liability of the Insurance Company. It appears that 20% liability caste upon respondent no.3 and 80% liability caste upon respondent no.6. In the present case, the multiple vehicles involved in the accident and, therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. So, the claimants can recover the additional amount of compensation from any of the joint tortfeasor. 13. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. So, the claimants can recover the additional amount of compensation from any of the joint tortfeasor. 13. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation considering the income of the original claimant (deceased) at Rs.8,000/- plus 25% 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 :- Rs.8,000/- income per month x 25% rise = Rs.10,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- x 14 multiplier = Rs.16,80,000/- - Rs.5,60,000/- (Rs.16,80,000/- x 1/3 deduction) Rs.11,20,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000.00 Loss of estate Rs.15,000.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 3) Rs.1,20,000.00 Total amount Rs.12,70,000.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.6,30,000.00 Additional amount Rs.6,40,000.00 Additional amount Rs.6,40,000.00 Accordingly a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- as additional compensation requires to be awarded towards future loss of income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in addition to Rs.6,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization. We answered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby modified and in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- 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 Insurance Companies are directed to deposit additional amount of compensation 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. 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. It is opined that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei (supra), the claimants can recover the additional amount from either of the insurance company. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.