JUDGMENT Nidhi Gupta, J. Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.17,83,000/- granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") vide Award dated 16.03.2021 passed in MACP No.412 of 2018 filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The four claimants are the widow, two minor children and mother of deceased-Harjit Singh aged 37 years at the time of death. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Harjit Singh had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 28.08.2018 at about 8:30 am due to rash and negligent driving of Etios car bearing registration No.HR-01AH-7606 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") being driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation solely on the ground that only Rs.40,000/- has been awarded to claimant No.1/widow of the deceased towards loss of consortium. It is submitted that all the four claimants were entitled to Rs.40,000/- each by way of loss of consortium. 4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. I find no merit in the singular submission made on behalf of the appellants. Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest judgment passed in case of "Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat & Others" Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023, and reiterated in Mehmooda Bee & Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (@ SLP (C) No.16767 of 2022) and Bebi Giri v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022, has held that Rs.40,000/-in toto can be awarded as consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs.70,000/- only is admissible under conventional heads. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the appellants. 7. Ltd. Civil Appeal No.6551 of 2022, has held that Rs.40,000/-in toto can be awarded as consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, a total sum of Rs.70,000/- only is admissible under conventional heads. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the appellants. 7. Compensation granted by learned Tribunal to the claimants is as follows in tabular form:- Heads Amounts Income Rs.8,827/- per month Deduction (1/4th) Rs.8,827/- - Rs.2,206.75/- (rounded off to Rs.2,207/-)= Rs.6,620/- Future prospects (40%) Rs.6,620/- + Rs.2,648/- = Rs.9,268/- Multiplier (15) Rs.9,268/- x 15 x 12 = Rs.16,68,240/- Reimbursement of medical bills Rs.5,760/- + Rs.28,741/- Transportation, special diet & misc. expenses, etc. Rs.10,000/- Loss of consortium to appellant No.1 Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Performance of last rites Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.17,82,741/- (rounded off to Rs.17,83,000/-) 8. I find no error whatsoever in the above compensation as granted by the learned Tribunal. I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Moreover, compensation awarded upon the death of a near and dear loved one cannot be made a market negotiation, where every penny has to be calculated and drawn. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, (1999) 1 SCC 90 and Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. v. Mahadev Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197 , has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In case of KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 9. In view of the above facts, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award. Present appeal accordingly stands dismissed. 10. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.