JUDGMENT : Gita Gopi, J. 1. All the present first appeals arise from the common judgment which has been decided on 06.10.2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) and City Civil Judge, Court No.17, Ahmedabad. 2. First Appeal No.4495 of 2009 challenges MACP No.304 of 2000, First Appeal No.719 of 2010 challenges MACP No.295 of 2000 while First Appeal No.720 of 2010 and First Appeal No.721 of 2010 challenges MACP No.296 of 2000 and MACP No.297 of 2000 respectively. 3. The facts of the case succinctly can be laid down as under: 3.1. The applicants of the above referred MACPs are either the injured or legal heirs of the deceased. The accident had occurred on 08.12.1999 at Beas Nallah, 33 kms away from Manali Police Station enroute to Rohtang in Himachal Pradesh. On 30.11.1999 all the victims had started travelling with a tourist party from Ahmedabad City. The tour was organized by Gandhi Tours and Travels having the head Quarter opposite Museum, Paldi Ahmedabad-7. After visiting Jaipur, Agra, Haridwar, Rishikesh, Katra, Vaishnodevi, they reached at Manali and were enroute to Rohtang on 08.12.1999 from Manali in a Maxi Cab bearing registration No.HP-02-8676. It was stated by the claimant that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle in full speed and in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and he lost control over the steering and at about 33 kms away in a North from Manali, the vehicle fell in the Nallah. Few died on the spot and other tourists were seriously injured. The victims were immediately shifted to Vilangdon Hospital at Manali and as per the doctors advice, they were further taken to other hospitals. 4. Learned advocate Mr. D. N. Pandya for the appellants-claimants submitted with regard to First Appeal No.4495 of 2000 which is connected to MACP No.304 of 2001 that, the deceased was 55 years at the time of the accident and was Electrical Mechanical Engineer. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submitted that as per the evidence of the widow, the deceased was handing over the salary of Rs.8,000/- while stating that the tribunal has erred in considering his income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Mr.Pandya submitted that taking into consideration his age as well as his academic career, the amount is not assessed in accordance to the evidence in record. Mr.Pandya submitted that taking into consideration his age as well as his academic career, the amount is not assessed in accordance to the evidence in record. Mr.Pandya further stated that at mark 10/1, the appointment letter of the deceased in Oilco Sales Corporation dated 25.05.1995 shows his basic salary of Rs.4,500/- in the post of Chief Production Engineer and thus, submitted that the income was required to be assessed, as if that would have drawn on the date of accident. 5. Countering the argument Mr.G. C. Majmudar submitted that as per the evidence of the son of the deceased produced at Exh.21, the deceased was employed with Oilco Sales Corporation which is a subsidiary of one Midco. Pvt. Ltd. and his service came to be terminated. Mr.Majmudar submitted that he was appointed as Chief Production Engineer in 22.05.1995 and his services were terminated on 16.12.1996 and a reference case (Labour No.234 of 1997) was filed raising an industrial dispute. Mr.Majmudar stated that on the date of accident, the deceased was having no income and as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the income drawn at the time of the accident is required to be assessed and thus stated that in absence of any evidence on record by way of any salary slip, the amount assessed as Rs.3,000/- by the tribunal is just and proper. 6. The evidence at mark 10/1 shows an appointment letter of the deceased who was appointed at the post of Chief Production Engineer for the salary of Rs.4,500/- as a basic. As per the evidence of the son the employment was terminated on 16.12.1996. The reference case was in progress. The result of the reference case was not brought on record of the Tribunal but it has been noted in the cross-examination that they have been joined as heirs of the deceased in the said reference matter. Since no evidence has been produced of his earning of Rs.8,000/- and the record at mark 10/1 shows that he was employed at the salary of Rs.4,500/-, this Court considers that the said amount of Rs.4,500/- be considered as his salary. Taking into consideration his age of 55 years on the date of accident, 10% prospective rise is granted. Hence, the amount would come to Rs.4950/-. 1/3rd is deducted for his personal expense. Taking into consideration his age of 55 years on the date of accident, 10% prospective rise is granted. Hence, the amount would come to Rs.4950/-. 1/3rd is deducted for his personal expense. Hence, Rs.3,300/- (Rs.4950- Rs.1650=Rs.3,300/-) considering the annual dependency applying the multiplier of 9, the dependency would be Rs.3,56,400/-. (Rs.3,300/- x 12 x 9). 7. In accordance with the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Rs.15,000/- is granted for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expense. Since the widow of the deceased has been joined as a claimant, in accordance with the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Rs.40,000/- is granted as consortium loss. In the result, the computation is under: Rs.3,56,400/- Dependency loss Rs.15,000/- Loss to estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.40,000/- Consortium Rs.4,26,400/- Total Compensation 8. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,22,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 9. In First Appeal No.719 of 2010 which is in connection with MACP No.295 of 2000, the tribunal has considered the salary of the applicant who at the relevant time was serving in Life insurance Corporation of India as Higher Grade Assistant. The income was considered at Rs.10,704/- and by assessing 10% disability for body as a whole the tribunal has granted the compensation amount under various heads which are just and proper. The total compensation of Rs.98,400/- has been granted by the tribunal at the rate of 7.5% which this Court considers that it is just and reasonable. 10. In First Appeal No.720 of 2010 in connection with the MACP No.296 of 2000, it was urged that the deceased was an advocate but could not practice because of her household responsibility. Hence, the learned tribunal, in that fact of the case, has considered her income as Rs.3,000/- for the housewife, however, no prospective rise of income has been assessed for the deceased who died at the age of 40 years. Hence, the learned tribunal, in that fact of the case, has considered her income as Rs.3,000/- for the housewife, however, no prospective rise of income has been assessed for the deceased who died at the age of 40 years. Thus, in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% rise in income is required to be assessed which come to Rs.750/- which on being added, the monthly income would be Rs.3,750/-. 1/3rd would be deducted as personal expense. Hence, the monthly dependency is Rs.2,500/- (Rs.3750/- - Rs.1250/-). Annually applying the multiplier of 15, the dependency loss would be 4,50,000/-. In view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- is granted for loss to estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. 11. The claimants were the husband and the minor.Hence, for the dependents in view of the judgment of Magma (supra), individually Rs.40,000/- is granted and in total Rs.80,000/- under the said head of consortium loss is granted. The computation thus would be as under: Rs.4,50,000/- Dependency loss Rs.15,000/- Loss to estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.80,000/- Consortium Rs.5,60,000/- Total Compensation 12. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,28,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 13. In First Appeal 721 of 2010 which is connected to MACP No.297 of 2000, the deceased minor was aged about 10 years. 14. In Kishan Gopal & Anr. v. Lala & Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 244 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring the facts of the case of minor aged about 10 years, had considered the notional income as Rs.30,000/- by applying multiplier of 15, considered Rs.4,50,000/- as dependency loss and Rs.50,000/- has been considered under the conventional heads for loss of love and affection, funeral expense and last rites, as was held in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas, reported in 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 197. 15. In Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, reported in 2022 ACJ 2478 , the child died in a road accident was aged about 12 years. Susamma Thomas, reported in 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), which is referred to in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 197. 15. In Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto, reported in 2022 ACJ 2478 , the child died in a road accident was aged about 12 years. The Hon’ble Apex Court after applying the ratio laid down in case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu And Another, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 317 , and the principle laid down in Kishan Gopal And Another Vs. Lala And Others (supra), accepting the notional earning of Rs.30,000/- including the future prospect, and by applying the multiplier of 15, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the loss of dependency was assessed as Rs.4,50,000/-, and further Rs.50,000/- was added in conventional head, and, thus total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted. 16. This Court considers that the present matter in which the age of deceased minor was 10 years at the time of accident, should be placed at the same pedestal, as had been observed in case of Kishan Gopal And Another Vs. Lala And Others (supra) and Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto (supra). The notional earning of the child including future prospect is required to be considered as Rs.30,000/- and by applying multiplier of 15 as laid down in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra), the loss of dependency is required to be assessed as Rs.4,50,000/-, and Rs.50,000/- is required to be granted under conventional head, and, thus this Court considers that in total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- would be an equitable, just and reasonable compensation for the claimants. 17. Thus in accordance with the decision of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 , the tribunal has granted Rs.1,25,000/- as total compensation. The additional compensation i.e. the enhanced amount is, therefore, Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.1,25,000/-) and hence, the claimants herein are entitled to get the said enhanced amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 18. The additional compensation i.e. the enhanced amount is, therefore, Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.1,25,000/-) and hence, the claimants herein are entitled to get the said enhanced amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 18. In view of the above, the enhanced amount in all the concerned matters is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 19. After the deposit of the money, let the amount be paid to the claimants after due verification of identity by RTGS or NEFT or Account payee cheque. 20. Present appeals are decided as aforesaid.