JUDGMENT : 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No.20/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.6,73,750/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that on 21.02.2017, deceased Biharilal Sahu along with his friend Atmaram Tandiya was going from Kanker to his home village Udkuda by his motorcycle. At around 7.00 P.M., near Dhaba 786, a truck bearing registration No. C.G.17-H-1133 which was being driven by respondent No.1 was parked by him negligently in the middle of the road without keeping the indicator on in violation of the traffic rules. Due to said parking, deceased Biharilal Sahu collided with the said truck and suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. Accident was reported to the Police Station- Kanker based upon which crime bearing No.70/2017 under sections 337, 304A of IPC was registered against respondent No.1-driver. 3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants instituted a claim petition under sections 166 (1) & 140(1) of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that at the time of the accident, the deceased, a 30 years old, was a 'Mason (Raj Mistri)' by profession and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, and thus, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,46,000/- was claimed under various heads. However, the Claims Tribunal considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the evidence adduced in support thereof, by the impugned award granted compensation to the claimants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award by the Claims Tribunal is bad in law, perverse, thus liable to be modified and enhanced. He further submits that the learned Claims tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award by the Claims Tribunal is bad in law, perverse, thus liable to be modified and enhanced. He further submits that the learned Claims tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of deceased as Rs. 3750/- per month contrary to evidence adduced before the learned tribunal as deceased was doing the work of mason and he was getting Rs.8,000/- per month and the accident took place in the year 2017 and for that year the minimum wages has been fixed by the State Government is Rs.250/- P.D. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Somwati in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 717:: (2020) ACJ 2321, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 620, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram in AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189 and this Court’s order dated 09.06.2021 passed in MCC No. 256/2021 (Smt. Laxmi Bai & others Vs. Bhushan Singh @ Tinku and others). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the impugned award. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. 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. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.6,73,750/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the instant case, learned Claims Tribunal calculated the income of the deceased as Rs.3,750/- per month. The accident took place on 21.02.2017 and at the time of accident, minimum wages for the skilled worker was Rs. 6,648/- per month as fixed by the State Government, therefore, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3750/- per month and annual income as Rs. 45000/- in the year 2017 is certainly on the lower side, it can only safely be taken a Rs.6,500/- per month. 10. 6,648/- per month as fixed by the State Government, therefore, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.3750/- per month and annual income as Rs. 45000/- in the year 2017 is certainly on the lower side, it can only safely be taken a Rs.6,500/- per month. 10. Considering that the deceased Bihari Lal on the date of accident, was aged about 30 years, keeping in view the nature of his job, taking into consideration the Hon'ble judgment in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS', (2017) 16 SCC 680 , there has to be 40% addition of his income towards future prospects. Thus, after adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income raises to Rs.9,100/- i.e. Rs. 1,09,200/- per annum. Since the deceased was survived by 4 dependents/claimants, though as per order dated 21.03.2022 of this Court, appellant No.4 Bharatram Sahu has died and his name has been deleted from the array of appellant, after making ¼ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs. 27,300/-, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 81,900/- In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,92,300/-. This apart in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRANAY SETHI (supra) the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses which was just and proper and appellant/claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In addition thereto, as per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram And Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , appellant/Claimant No.2, the minor daughter of the deceased, is also entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of Parental Consortium and likewise appellants/Claimants No. 3 & 4, parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of Filial Consortium. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Particular Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 3,750/- 6,500/- 2. Annual Income of the deceased 45,000/- 78,000/- 3. Future prospect @ 40% Nil 31,200/- 4. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Particular Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 3,750/- 6,500/- 2. Annual Income of the deceased 45,000/- 78,000/- 3. Future prospect @ 40% Nil 31,200/- 4. Total Income 45,000/- 109,200/- 5. Personal Exp. (1/4th ) 11,250/- 27,300/- 6. Net Annual Income 33,750/- 81,900/- 6. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency 5,73,750/- 13,92,300/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 8. Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 9. For Spousal Consortium to appellant No.1 40,000/- 40,000/- 10. Towards Parental Consortium to appellant No.2 10,000/- 40,000/- 11. Towards Filial Consortium to appellants No. 3 & 4 20,000/- 80,000/- Total Compensation 6,73,750/- 15,82,300/- 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.6,73,750/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,82,300/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,73,750/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 9,08,550/- the additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.