JUDGMENT : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. 1. The aforesaid appeals have arisen from the judgment and award dated 21.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 383/2016 titled as Smt. Asha Singhal and Others vs. RSRTC and Others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.51,14,940/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in favour of the claimants-appellants (for short ‘the claimants’). 2. CMA No. 2504/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas CMA No. 2215/2017 has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the RSRTC) challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds. 3. CMA No. 2504/2017-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal had wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.55,405/- per month instead of Rs.56,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that there is unrebutted evidence that deceased was earning Rs.56,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal had not awarded the amount towards the future prospects. The deceased was a Government Servant and working as A.En. So, claimants are entitled to 30% of the deceased’s income towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount towards the loss of consortium and love & affection, whereas it should be Rs.2,00,000/- to each claimants. So, award of the Tribunal be modified. 4. CMA No. 2215/2017-Learned counsel for the RSRTC submits that the Tribunal had committed an error in granting compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that in FIR, the bus number was mentioned as “4846” but in the claim petition, the bus number was mentioned as “3583”. So, claimants hatched a conspiracy to got the claim amount and they had falsely implicated the Bus No. RJ-23-PA 3583. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that deceased and Hari Om Prakash Gupta fell down on the stones of the hills on account of dragging with electric wires. To get the claim, they had filed the false claim petition before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that deceased and Hari Om Prakash Gupta fell down on the stones of the hills on account of dragging with electric wires. To get the claim, they had filed the false claim petition before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the Tribunal wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.55,405/- per month because wife of the deceased was getting pension of Rs.31,201/- per month. So, pension be deducted from the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the Tribunal had wrongly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased and Rs.1,00,000/- to the children for love and affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- as a lump sum. Learned counsel for the RSRTC also submits that the Tribunal wrongly awarded the amount towards the funeral expenses as Rs.25,000/- whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. So, award of the Tribunal be modified. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the RSRTC. 6. It is an admitted position that deceased was Assistant Engineer in Electricity Department. As per the Salary Certificate Ex.15, he was getting salary of Rs.55,405/-. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal had not committed any error in calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.55,405/- per month and rightly deducted Rs.6,000/- as income tax but the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the future prospects. As per the age of the deceased, claimants are entitled to get 15% of the deceased’s income towards future prospects. The Tribunal has awarded a very huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- for love and affection to claimant Nos.2 to 5. So, in my considered opinion, as per judgment pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as other High Courts, claimants are only entitled to get Rs.40,000/- as a lump sum in the head of loss of consortium and love & affection. The Tribunal had also wrongly awarded Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the loss of estate. So, claimants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate. The Tribunal had also wrongly awarded Rs.25,000/- as funeral expenses, whereas it should be Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards the loss of estate. So, claimants are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under: Monthly Income 55,405/- Less Income Tax 55,405 - 6,000/- = 49,405/- 1/4 income to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased 49,405 x 1/4 = 12,351.25/- (Round off Rs. 12,351/-) (49,405 - 12351 = 37,054/-) Annual Income 37,054/- x 12 = 4,44,648/- Since the deceased was 53 years of age, multiplier of 11 should be applied 4,44,648/- x 11 = 48,91,128/- Add Future Prospects 48,91,128 x 15% = 7,33,669.2/- (Round off Rs. 7,33,669/-) Loss of Consortium and Love and Affection to the claimants Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 56,94,797/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 51,14,940/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 56,94,797/- - 51,14,940/- = 5,79,857/- 7. In view of the above, the amount of compensation receivable by the claimants comes to Rs.56,94,797/- instead of Rs.51,14,940/-/-. Thus, the RSRTC is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.5,79,857/- (Rs.56,94,797/- – 51,14,940/-) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 8. Other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. 9. Consequently, both the appeals are partly allowed. Impugned judgment is modified accordingly. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.