JUDGMENT 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.387/2017 before the MACT, Bhalki constituted under Sec. 165 of MV Act, challenging the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as per the award dtd. 30/4/2018. 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 27/3/2017 at 5.00 p.m. near SB Patil Dental College, Naubad-Bidar on Bidar- Humnabad Road, when husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 by name Rajkumar was proceeding by walk towards Naubad side on the left side of the road, a KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-36-F-728 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against said Rajkumar and caused the accident. He sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest, stomach, both the shoulders, fore-head and succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. The claimants shifted the dead body by hiring a vehicle and thereafter conducted the funeral by spending more than Rs.30, 000.00. A complaint was lodged in crime No.33/17 at Traffic Police Station, Bidar. 4. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 40 years at the time of his death. He was running a Kirana business 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. Petitioner no.1 being the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 being small children aged 13, 10 and 8 years have lost the love and affection of their father and have been put to great mental shock. These claimants were depending upon deceased's income. Therefore, it is claimed by the complainants to award compensation of Rs.42, 92, 000.00 under all the heads. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, pursuant to the notice, respondent-Corporation-the owner of offending bus appeared and resisted the petition by filing detailed objections. These claimants were depending upon deceased's income. Therefore, it is claimed by the complainants to award compensation of Rs.42, 92, 000.00 under all the heads. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, pursuant to the notice, respondent-Corporation-the owner of offending bus appeared and resisted the petition by filing detailed objections. The allegations of rash and negligent driving of the said bus by the driver, earning capacity of the deceased have been flatly denied by the respondent. The claim of the claimants as per the say of the respondent is exorbitant; they are not entitled for interest at the rate of 18% on the compensation. It is also denied that the sufficient amounts have been spent on funeral expenses. It is contended that, without prejudice to the right of the respondents, Rs.15.00, 000.00 was paid to the claimants in advance. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues they are as follows: "1. Whether the claimants prove that on 23/3/2017 at 5.30 p.m. on Bidar-Humnabad road near SB Dental College at Naubad, at Bidar, while Rajkumar was proceeding on the left side of road, the accident occurred is due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-36/F-728 by its rider? 2. Whether the claimants proves that deceased-Rajkumar died due to injuries sustained the above said accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? 4. What order or award?" 7. Before the Tribunal, petitioner no.1 entered the witness box and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 and closed petitioners' evidence. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 to rebut the claim of the petitioners and got marked the document Ex.R1 and closed its evidence. 8. The learned Tribunal, having heard the arguments, allowed the petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.8, 65, 000.00 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. There was an order for deposit and payment of compensation so awarded on deposit. 9. It is this judgment and award which is challenged by the appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded and according to them, the compensation so awarded is inadequate and is opposed to the probabilities of the case. There is no proper awarding of compensation towards conventional heads. 9. It is this judgment and award which is challenged by the appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded and according to them, the compensation so awarded is inadequate and is opposed to the probabilities of the case. There is no proper awarding of compensation towards conventional heads. The income of the deceased was not properly assessed and taken by the Tribunal. In fact, the said income of the deceased per month was to be enhanced upto Rs.20, 000.00 per month. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced. 10. We have heard the arguments of both side at length and perused the record. 11. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6, 000.00 per month and deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses. After deduction, the income was calculated at Rs.4, 500.00 per month. Towards other conventional heads, the compensation is awarded. As per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 case, the multiplier applied was Rs.15.00'. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8, 10, 000.00 towards loss of dependency and Rs.70, 000.00 under conventional heads totally amounting to Rs.8, 80, 00.00 and deducted Rs.15.00, 000.00 which was given for funeral expenses. Totally an amount of Rs.8, 65, 000.00 was awarded to the claimants. 12. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants- claimants that the compensation so awarded is inadequate as the Tribunal has considered Rs.200.00 per day and taken monthly income at Rs.6, 000.00 The monthly income of the deceased should have been taken at more than Rs.12, 000.00 as he was running a Kirana Shop. At least notional income has to be taken looking to the present day conditions and business. He further submits that, Kirana business though proprietary concern gives more profit. There was increase in the business of the deceased. 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 the Judgment reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 13. There was increase in the business of the deceased. 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 the Judgment reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 15. 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 rash and negligent act of the driver in causing the accident by the respondent. Therefore, now we have to restrict our findings only with regard to inadequacy of the compensation. 16. Evidently, the deceased Rajkumar was a businessman running Kirana Shop. From the Kirana Shop he must have been earning substantially. If the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.10, 250.00 and as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi case, there would be addition of 25% (25% of Rs.10, 250.00= Rs.2, 562.00) to the said income, if calculated, the income of the deceased would be Rs.12, 812.00. As the deceased was married, being a businessman, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, it would be Rs.12, 812.00 Rs.3, 203.00 = Rs.9, 609.00. The annual income would be Rs.1, 15, 308.00. The deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and as per Sarla Verma's case proper multiplier applicable is Rs.15.00'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.17, 29, 620.00 (Rs.1, 15, 308.00 x 15). 17. Petitioner no.1. is the wife aged 30 years and at her young age, she has lost her husband. So also claimants 2 to 4 are children aged 13, 11 and 8 years as on the date of filing of the claim petition as per the cause title. They too, at their young age who are not capable of understanding the men and material, have lost their father being bread earner. They also lost his love and affection. Towards loss of consortium, certain amount is to be awarded to claimant no.1. Claimant nos. 2 to 4 have lost their father and also lost his love and affection towards them. Therefore, towards filial love and affection, these claimants are entitled to some compensation. They also lost his love and affection. Towards loss of consortium, certain amount is to be awarded to claimant no.1. Claimant nos. 2 to 4 have lost their father and also lost his love and affection towards them. Therefore, towards filial love and affection, these claimants are entitled to some compensation. So also, because of untimely death of deceased Rajkumar, there is loss of estate. So also, the petitioners must have spent substantial amount towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies. Therefore, certain amount is to be awarded towards funeral expenses and obsequies ceremonies. 18. As already MACT has awarded compensation which is being challenged in this case with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., the same interest is to be awarded on the amount so enhanced in this appeal. Thus the claimant-appellants are entitled for compensation as under: 19. 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. ii) The Judgment and Award dtd. 30/4/2018 passed in MVC No.387/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bhalki is modified. The appellants-claimants are held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.10, 58, 000.00 together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization. iii) The respondent is directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation before the MACT, Bhalki within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment. iv) On such deposit, the Tribunal to take appropriate steps to deposit the amount in the name of minors i.e., claimant no.2 to 4 keeping their interest and also make payment as per the terms of apportionment so passed while passing the award. v) Claimant no.1 is entitled to draw periodical interest on such deposit. vi) Advocate fee is quantified at Rs.5, 000.00.