JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/non-claimant No.3 has filed by the instant appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 03.04.2019 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.109/2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to tune of Rs.14,04,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition on account of death of Sh. Pukhraj. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed a claim petition under Section 140/166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of untimely death of their breadwinner late Sh. Pukhraj. In the claim petition it was stated by the claimants that on 19.11.2017, while deceased was riding on Motorcycle No.RJ-22-AS-9603 from Sanwata Khurd to Sanwanta Kallan, in the meanwhile another Motorcycle (RJ-22-AS-6018), which was plied by its rider in wrong side, hit the motorcycle of Pukhraj. As a result of which, Pukhraj sustained head injury and he died during treatment on 25.11.2017. At the time of accident, the deceased was 39 years of age and thus the claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,30,86,000/-. 3. The non-claimants were summoned. After service of the summons, the non-claimants No.1 and 2 filed their reply to claim petition while contesting the claim petition. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the averments therein for want of knowledge. It was stated in the reply that the deceased was plying the motorcycle negligently and the accident occurred due to his own negligence. It was further stated by the non-claimant No.3 that rider of the offending motorcycle was also not having valid and effective licence and thus on account of violation of conditions of the policy, the liability of paying compensation could not have been fastened upon the insurance company. It was further stated that the claimants have claimed excess amount of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, including relief. In support of their claim, the claimants examined two witnesses, viz. AW.1 Smt. Bharti and AW.2 Somaram. In documentary evidence, the claimants exhibited 16 documents. On behalf of non-claimants, no evidence was led. 5. 4. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues, including relief. In support of their claim, the claimants examined two witnesses, viz. AW.1 Smt. Bharti and AW.2 Somaram. In documentary evidence, the claimants exhibited 16 documents. On behalf of non-claimants, no evidence was led. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the material placed before, it vide judgment and award dated 03.04.2019 proceeded to partly allowed claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.14,04,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition while holding all the non-claimants jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/-, inasmuch as no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly wages at Rs.5382/-. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal qua non-pecuniary loss is also on higher side and the same also deserves to be awarded in view of Guidelines laid down by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for claimants opposes the submissions made by counsel for the insurance company and submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is adequate 8. While admitting the instant appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2019 directed the appellant insurance company to deposit a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- inclusive of amount already deposited within a four weeks, and recovery of remaining amount under the judgment and award dated 03.04.2019 was stayed. The amount upon being deposited was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants. The stay application itself was disposed of on 02.09.2019. 9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 10. The amount upon being deposited was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants. The stay application itself was disposed of on 02.09.2019. 9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 10. This Court finds that the claimants have not produced any evidence to substantiate the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month and at the most the deceased could have been considered an unskilled labour and the monthly wages should be considered as Rs.5382/- while deducting ¼ qua the personal expenses of the deceased looking the number of dependents. This Court also finds that the compensation awarded under other heads viz. consortium/loss of care and guidance deserves to be modified. The claimants are thus held entitled to get compensation under the head of consortium/loss of care and guidance @ Rs.48,000/- for each claimant and the claim awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses is also reduced to Rs.18,000/- each. 11. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards the loss of income is required to be re-quantified in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 , which is as under: - Minimum wages Rs.5382/- Yearly income 5382 x 12 64,581/- Multiplier of 64,581 x 15 9,68,760/- Add Future Prospects 40% 3,87,504/- Rs.13,56,264/- Less: ¼ deduction Rs.3,39,066/- Loss of Income 10,17,198/- 12. Accordingly, the compensation is accordingly re-quantified as under: - S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Compensation towards loss of income while adding 40% towards future prospects along with multiplier of 15. Rs.10,17,198/- 2. Consortium [48,000 x 5 = 2,40,000/-] Rs. 2,40,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- Gross Total Rs.12,93,198/- 13. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, the misc. appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is partly allowed. The claimants are thus held entitle to get compensation of Rs.12,93,198/- instead of Rs.14,04,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The amount of compensation is thus reduced by Rs.1,10,802/-. The judgment and award dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned MACT, Pali in MAC Case No.109/2018 is modified. The compensation re-determined by this judgment, shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition. The amount of compensation is thus reduced by Rs.1,10,802/-. The judgment and award dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned MACT, Pali in MAC Case No.109/2018 is modified. The compensation re-determined by this judgment, shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition. The amount of compensation, if any disbursed to the claimants, shall be adjusted.