JUDGMENT/ORDER RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR, J. - This appeal is preferred under Sec.173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the MV Act') by the appellants-claimants in claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of MV Act in MVC No.740/2018 before the MACT, Kalaburagi constituted under Sec. 165 of MV Act, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as per the award dtd. 2/1/2020. 2. As the short point is involved with regard to inadequacy of the compensation, with consent of both the side, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 24/2/2018 at about 5.15 p.m. deceased Sanjukumar to attend his personal work had been to Choudapur. After completion of his work, when he was returning to his village Dhannur on his motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA-27-R-4978 and when he came near Kadaganchi Petrol Pump on Choudapur-Afzalpur Main Road, a driver of a KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-32-F-1860 by driving the bus in rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle driven by Sanjukumar. He sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Hospital in an ambulance. But, succumbed to the accidental injuries in the Hospital. 4. It is the further case of the claimants that, prior to the accident, deceased was running a Kirana Shop and used to earn Rs.20,000.00. Claimant no.1 being wife, claimant no.2 being his son and claimant no.3 and 4 being the parents of deceased were depending upon the earning of deceased Sanjukumar. Now, they are deprived of their earning member because of untimely death of deceased. Hence, it is prayed before the tribunal to award compensation of Rs.61,00,000.00. 5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the MACT, both the respondents appeared. Respondent no.1 has not filed any objections whereas, respondent no.2 filed the objections denying the entire assertions made in the petition. 6. It is contended that, it is rider of the motor bike i.e. deceased who was rash and negligent in riding his motor bike and due to his negligence, the said accident has taken place. The police have registered a false case against the Driver of the bus. The compensation so claimed is exorbitant. It is prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based upon the rival pleadings, the learned MACT framed following five issues: "1. The police have registered a false case against the Driver of the bus. The compensation so claimed is exorbitant. It is prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based upon the rival pleadings, the learned MACT framed following five issues: "1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 24/2/2018 at or about 5.55 p.m. on Chowdapur-Afzalpur Road, Near Kadaganchi Petrol Pump Afzalpur, when the deceased Sanju Kumar was proceeding on Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-27/R-4978, at that movement the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-32/F-1860 drove at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased motor cycle thereby the accident occurred and succumbed to injuries in the accident? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased? 3. Whether the respondent proves that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as contended in para no.7 of the objection statement? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, from whom ? 5. What order or award?" 8. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, claimant no.1 appeared before the MACT and was examined himself as PW.1. Got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and closed claimant's evidence. 9. To rebut the evidence of the claimants, representative of respondent no.2 entered the witness box as RW.1. No documents are marked on behalf of respondent no.2. Both PW.1 and RW.1 are thoroughly cross-examined. 10. The learned MACT having heard the arguments and on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence answered issue no.1 in the affirmative, issue no.4 partly in the affirmative and issue nos. 2 and 3 in the negative and ultimately awarded compensation of Rs.19,98,000.00 fastening liability on respondent no.2 to deposit the same by fixing the time limit with deposit clause. 11. After filing of this appeal, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 Sri Mallayya Manjunath Shetty, took notice of this appeal. As per peremptory order dtd. 6/12/2022, appeal against respondent no.1 is dismissed. 12. It is this judgment that has been challenged by the appellants on the following grounds: That, the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the injuries sustained by the deceased. Documentary evidence have not been considered. Thus, the judgment is arbitrary, erroneous and illegal. Ex.P8 to P10 have been produced to prove about the income of the deceased from his Kirana Business and agriculture. These aspects have not been properly considered. Documentary evidence have not been considered. Thus, the judgment is arbitrary, erroneous and illegal. Ex.P8 to P10 have been produced to prove about the income of the deceased from his Kirana Business and agriculture. These aspects have not been properly considered. The amount of income so reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000.00per month is on lower side. Agriculture income is not considered. The compensation so awarded on other heads also is not proper. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation as it is too inadequate. 13. We have heard the arguments. Perused the records. 14. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 30 years at the time of his death. He was running a Kirana business as well as an agriculturist and was earning not less than Rs.20,000.00 per month. From the said income, he used to maintain his family. It is stated that because of untimely death, the claimants have lost their earning member. Claimant No.1 being the wife and claimant no. 2 being the son and claimant nos. 3 and 4 being parents have lost their bread earner. It is stated that the deceased was the only son to his parents. Because of untimely death, now the claimants are deprived of their earning member and his love and affection. Claimant no.1 being the wife at her young age lost her husband and claimant no.2 is just aged 6 years. Claimant no.3 and 4 being parents aged 61 and 60 respectively. 15. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000.00 per month plus 40% which is Rs.3,600.00. Thus, it has calculated the monthly income at Rs.12,600.00 yearly income 1,51,200/-. Since the deceased was married, 1/4th of his income was deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, it arrived at Rs.37,800.00 (1/4th of Rs.1,51,200.00). Thus, the yearly income of the deceased was calculated at Rs.1,13,400.00. The multiplier 17' was applied as per the Judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 case. The loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.19,27,800.00 (Rs.1,13,400.00 x 17). In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.19,98,000.00 including the award under the conventional heads. 16. It is argued by the counsel for the appellantsclaimants that the compensation so awarded is inadequate. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 case. The loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.19,27,800.00 (Rs.1,13,400.00 x 17). In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.19,98,000.00 including the award under the conventional heads. 16. It is argued by the counsel for the appellantsclaimants that the compensation so awarded is inadequate. Under all the conventional heads, compensation have to be awarded by considering the monthly income of the deceased at more than Rs.20,000.00 as he was running a Kirana Shop and also he had agricultural income. At least notional income has to be taken looking to the present day conditions and business. He further submits, a person who is running a Kirana Shop would get more profit from such business. Therefore, he submits that, a notional income has to be taken into consideration depending upon the year of accident and other aspects as per the law laid down in National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 17. In Syed Basheer Ahmed vs. Mohammed Zameer (2009) 2 SCC 225 the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that Sec.168 of the MV Act enjoins the claims Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just". However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which appears to be just" vests wide discretion in the Claims Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily or to ignore settled principles relating to the determination of the compensation. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation. The determination of the compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimants has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 18. The determination of the compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependents of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimants has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards. 18. The determination of the quantum must answer what "contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrong doer to hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing". The amount awarded must not be niggardly since the "law values life and limb in a free Society in generous case". At the same time, misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining compensation. The object of providing compensation is to please the claimants to the extent possible, in almost the same financial position as they were in before the accident and not to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen them. 19. Keeping in mind the aforesaid analogy with regard to awarding of just compensation, now as in this case the inadequacy of compensation is challenged by the claimants-appellants and there is no challenge of the findings with regard to the rash and negligent act of the driver in causing the accident by the respondent, now we have to restrict our findings only with regard to inadequacy of the compensation. 20. Evidently, the deceased Sanju Kumar was a businessman running Kirana Shop. From the Kirana Shop he must have been earning substantially. The assertion that he was having agriculture income is also denied by the respondents. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, if the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,750.00 and as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case supra, there would be addition of 40% (40% of Rs.11,750.00 is Rs.4,700.00 = Rs.16,450.00). As the deceased was a married person, 1/4th of his total income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income would be Rs.12,337.50(Rs.16,450.00 x 1/4 = Rs.4,112.50, Rs.16450.00 4112.50 = 12,337.50). Annual income would come to Rs.1,48,050.00 (Rs.12,337.50 x 12). It is to be multiplied by multiplier 17' as the deceased was aged 30 years as per Sarla Verma's case supra. Thus, the monthly income would be Rs.12,337.50(Rs.16,450.00 x 1/4 = Rs.4,112.50, Rs.16450.00 4112.50 = 12,337.50). Annual income would come to Rs.1,48,050.00 (Rs.12,337.50 x 12). It is to be multiplied by multiplier 17' as the deceased was aged 30 years as per Sarla Verma's case supra. Thus, the loss of dependency would be Rs.25,16,850.00 (Rs.1,48,050.00 x 17) 21. Petitioner no.1.is the wife aged 30 years and at her young age, she has lost her husband. As she has lost her husband at her young age, towards consortium, certain amount is to be awarded. If Rs.40,000.00 is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. Likewise, claimant no. 2 being the son, has lost his father at his young age of 6 years and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 being parents, at their evening of life have lost their son. Therefore, if Rs.40,000.00 each is awarded to each of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 towards loss of consortium, it would meet the ends of justice. There is untimely death of deceased Sanju Kumar and because of the same, there is a loss of estate, if Rs.10,000.00 is awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate, it is just and proper. Towards funeral and obsequies expenses, it is appropriate if Rs.20,000.00 is awarded. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for total compensation of Rs.27,06,850.00. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,98,000.00. After deduction of the same, the appellantsclaimants are entitled for a total enhanced compensation of Rs.7,09,000.00 (Rs.27,06,850.00 19,98,000) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 22. Thus, claimants-appellants are entitled for compensation as under: 23. In view of our discussion, with regard to the actionable claim and the compensation to be awarded to the claimants, this appeal deserves to be allowed in-part. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in-part. The Judgment and Award dtd. 2/1/2020 passed in MVC No.740/2018 by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi is modified. The appellants-claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.7,09,000.00 together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization. ii) The respondent-2 is directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation before the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment. The appellants-claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.7,09,000.00 together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization. ii) The respondent-2 is directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation before the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment. iii) On such deposit, the Tribunal to take appropriate steps to deposit the amount in the name of minor i.e., claimantappellant no.2 keeping his welfare and interest and also make payment as per the terms of apportionment so passed in its order. iv) Claimant-appellant no.1 is entitled to draw the periodical interest on such deposit. v) Advocate fee is quantified at Rs.5,000.00.