JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against judgment and award dated 13.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 54/1991 (208/1995). 2. The widow, children, mother and father were original claimants. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were driver and owner respectively while respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain whether the appellants are entitled to relief of enhancement of compensation as prayed in the present appeal. The accident occurred on 11.11.1990, when a jeep bearing registration number RST 4644 collided with a scooter bearing registration number RPK 3762 causing death of driver of scooter Bal Mukand, which led to the claim petition preferred against the parties of the jeep attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. The scooter was being driven by deceased Bal Mukand and the offending jeep was being driven by the first respondent – Devi Singh. 4. Though summon was served, the first respondent has remained ex-parte. The claim petition was contested by remaining respondents. The second respondent, who was stated to be the owner of offending jeep, filed written statement wherein all the averments contained in claim petition were denied; simultaneously, pointing out that the accident was only because of negligence on the part of driver of the scooter, i.e. the deceased himself. He also denied liability for payment of compensation saying that the jeep was insured with the insurer. The third respondent, who was insurer of the offending jeep also contested the claim on many grounds including negligence; simultaneously, contending that first respondent had no valid driving license and that there was clear violation of statutory/ policy conditions. However, in the written statement, it was conceded that the offending jeep was insured by it. Additional objections were also taken and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings submitted, framed various issues covering the pleadings. The evidence consists of oral evidence of Gautam Chhapar (AW-1), who is son of the deceased and Bhanwar Lal (AW-2), who is stated to be an eye witness of the accident. Besides it, exhibits A/1 to A/9 were also produced from appellants’ side. 5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings submitted, framed various issues covering the pleadings. The evidence consists of oral evidence of Gautam Chhapar (AW-1), who is son of the deceased and Bhanwar Lal (AW-2), who is stated to be an eye witness of the accident. Besides it, exhibits A/1 to A/9 were also produced from appellants’ side. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. On appraisal of evidence and record, the learned Tribunal held that Bal Mukand died due to the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It decided issues No. 1 and 2 accordingly. Under issue No.3, it was held that there was no violation of statutory/policy conditions as contended by the third respondent-insurer. Therefore, issue No.3 was decided in favour of the claimants holding that they were entitled to and respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, were liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to Rs.1,71,350 with interest @ 12% per annum by taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month. It deducted 40% of the income towards personal expenses. The multiplier of 11 was taken to compute the compensation as the deceased was aged about 51 years. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500 towards funeral expenses, Rs. 450 for loss of watch and Rs. 3,000 for love and affection to each surviving children, observing that the window, father and mother of the deceased had passed away before the judgement is a rendered. 7. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to them, present appeal is filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation. 8. Shri Mudit Vaishnava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. The judgment of the Tribunal cannot stand to the scrutiny of law inasmuch as nothing is granted in favour of the claimants under the head of future prospects and advancement in life and career which should be sounded in terms of money while calculating the compensation therefore, the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation in view of the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Vs. Somwati : (2020) 9 SCC 644 . Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Vs. Somwati : (2020) 9 SCC 644 . He further contended that a substantial amount of 40% has been deducted for personal expenses of the deceased and a meager compensation has been awarded in conventional heads; that the Tribunal has applied lower multiplier looking to the age of the deceased whereas, it ought to have applied a higher multiplier; that even the compensation awarded under conventional heads was not in accordance with norms established by Hon’ble the Apex Court. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed and suitable enhancement of the award be made. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of Shri Sunil A. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -Insurance Company that the Tribunal, after critically evaluating evidence on record, has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants. No fault can be found with the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. It is also argued that in absence of documentary proof of income, the question of future prospects simply does not arise. He, however, supported the impugned judgment and argued that the appellants have failed to make out a case for further enhancement in the amount of compensation therefore, the present appeal do not merit interference. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid rival contentions, the evidence available on record and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award in awarding compensation in favour of the appellants, it is seen that in the present case, the respondents have not filed any appeal or cross-objections against the impugned judgment and award as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. In the absence of cross appeal or cross objection being filed, the insurance company has accepted the determination of issue number 1 to 3 as made by the Tribunnal. 12. The learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion on the basis of the material available on record that death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep driver – Devi Singh. 12. The learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion on the basis of the material available on record that death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep driver – Devi Singh. It is seen from material available on record that the correctness and determination of issues No. 1, 2 and 3 is not subjected to challenge on behalf of the respondents before this Court. The findings recorded by the Tribunal qua issues No. 1, 2 and 3 regarding rash and negligent manner of the jeep driver, cause of accident, dispute regarding driving license of the jeep driver and liability of insurer to pay compensation have thus, attained finality. 13. Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate ? 14. The material available on record reveals that the age of the deceased – Bal Mukand at the time of accident was 51 years and he was head of a family supporting his wife, three children and his both parents. 15. The widow, father and mother of the deceased -Bal Mukand died during the pendency of the claim petition. Due to this reason, the Tribunal considered only three remaining survivors i.e. two sons and one daughter as the dependents and calculated the amount of award accordingly. I am afraid that the preposition is not correct and therefore, the said observation of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. The cause of action for claiming compensation arises for claimants as on the date of death of Bal Mukand in the accident. So, on the death of Bal Mukand, a right had accrued to all the dependents for claiming compensation and merely because some of the claimants namely widow, father and mother died during the pendency of the proceedings that will not abrogate their right to claim compensation. The claimants and legal liabilities crystallized at the time of accident itself and changes happened post-accident do not ordinarily affect the pending proceedings. Merely because some of claimant died during the pendency of the claim petition, by no stretch can be construed to mean that their claim have abated. The quantification of compensation payable has to be ascertained on the date on which the cause of action arises for filing of the petition for compensation. Merely because some of claimant died during the pendency of the claim petition, by no stretch can be construed to mean that their claim have abated. The quantification of compensation payable has to be ascertained on the date on which the cause of action arises for filing of the petition for compensation. On death of any of the claimants, that right will survive to remaining legal heirs of the victim of the accident – Bal Mukand, therefore, this Court is not persuaded by the observations canvassed by the learned Tribunal depriving the deceased claimants, payment of compensation which they were entitled to get. The Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation payable to appellants by following correct legal principles. 16. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable, claimants have not disputed the monthly income of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,000 per month. It is also very much relevant to note that the insurance company has not filed the cross objections and does not seek to reduce the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. 17. At the time of accident, the deceased left behind six dependents. The learned Tribunal deducted Rs.800/-per month (40%) from the monthly income for personal expenses. As per the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.: (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it was held that where the number of dependents are six, the deduction for personal expenses of the deceased should be one-fourth of his income. Therefore, instead of Rs.800 per month, deduction of one-fourth of monthly income i.e. Rs.500 per month ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 18. The future prospect has become an integral part of the award under Motor Vehicles Act. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that in case where the deceased was self-employed, addition of 10% of income should be awarded where the deceased was in the age group of 50 to 60 years, therefore, 10% of income of the deceased has to be added towards loss of future prospects. 19. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,500 for funeral expenses and Rs.3,000 each for love and affection to three surviving children. 19. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,500 for funeral expenses and Rs.3,000 each for love and affection to three surviving children. The evidence clearly reveals that the watch and scooter of the deceased was also damaged in the accident. 20. In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble the Apex court has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000 towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000 for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses. The aforesaid amounts were to be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years as decided by Hon’ble the Apex Court. The said judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court was pronounced in the year 2017. Therefore, considering the time elapsed since then, the claimants are entitled to get 10% increase twice. 21. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Somwati & Ors. (supra), awarding of compensation for loss of consortium separately for wife, each child, mother and father of the deceased was upheld by Hon’ble the Apex Court. 22. The award amount, when increased twice in the conventional heads is calculated as follows:- Particulars Amount towards loss of estate Amount towards funeral expenses Loss of consortium to each dependents. Amount awarded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court 15,000 15,000 40,000 Add : 10% increment for first block of three years 1,500 1,500 4,000 SUM 16,500 16,500 44,000 Add : 10% increment for second block of three years 1,650 1,650 4,400 AWARD PAYABLE AMOUNT 18,150 18,150 48,400 23. To sum up, I am of the opinion that 10% addition for future prospects of the deceased ought to have been made to already assessed monthly income of Rs.2,000. Deduction of one-fourth of the income ought to be made for personal expenses. As calculated in para number 22, Rs.18,150 is awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150 is also awarded for funeral expenses. Further, for loss of consortium Rs.48,400 is awarded to spousal consortium to wife, Rs.48,400 is awarded towards parental consortium to each child and Rs.48,400 is awarded towards filial consortium to each of the parent. 24. As calculated in para number 22, Rs.18,150 is awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150 is also awarded for funeral expenses. Further, for loss of consortium Rs.48,400 is awarded to spousal consortium to wife, Rs.48,400 is awarded towards parental consortium to each child and Rs.48,400 is awarded towards filial consortium to each of the parent. 24. Thus re-computed, the amount of compensation works out as under: A. Annual income of the deceased (2,000 x 12 ) 24,000 B. Added: future prospects (10%) 2400 C. Total annual income of the deceased (A+B) 26,400 D. Deducted: towards personal expenses (1/4th) 6,600 E. Annual amount of dependency (C-D) 19,800 F. Multiplier to be applied 11 G. Total amount of dependency (E X F) 2,17,800 H. Added: Consortium to all claimants 2,90,400 I. Added: Loss of estate 18,150 J. Added: Funeral expenses 18,150 Total entitlement of the appellants 5,44,500 Amount awarded by the Tribunal 1,71,350 Enhanced amount to be paid 3,73,150 25. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the impugned award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of total compensation payable shall be Rs.5,44,500 instead of Rs.1,71,350. Further, it is so held and directed that after adjustment of payment, if already made, the Insurance Company shall pay to the surviving claimants the amount of enhanced compensation along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realisation within eight weeks from the date of this judgment. 26. On such deposit being made, the same shall be disbursed to the surviving claimants, i.e. three children of the deceased in an appropriate ratio, deemed just and proper by the Tribunal after giving an opportunity of being heard to them in-person. 27. Disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.