JUDGMENT : 1. This is appellant/claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (C.G.) (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.31 of 2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The facts leading to filing of the claim petition are that on 05.12.2014, the deceased Bisesar Patel was going to village Achhota and as soon as he reached near Karma Tractors, he was dashed by Truck (TATA 409) bearing registration No.CG/07/C/5833 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) being driven by its driver/respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of such dash, Bisesar Patel sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. On account of death of Bisesar Patel, appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and sought total compensation amount of Rs.32,50,000/- under various heads, before the Tribunal, inter alia, stating that the deceased was aged 35 years and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by doing the furniture work. 4. Respondents filed their written statements before the Claims Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition. Parties led evidence. 5. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck (TATA 409) bearing registration No.CG/07/C/5833 by its driver/respondent No.1; the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died due to above accident; it was not proved that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of policy conditions; awarded total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. Having held as such, the Tribunal fixed the responsibility to pay compensation upon the respondents jointly and severally. 6. Shri Samir Singh and Shri Ashwell Franklin, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has fallen in error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased only as Rs.3,000/- on notional basis. The Tribunal also erred in not granting any amount under the head 'future prospects' and that, the amount awarded under conventional heads is also on lower side. Therefore, he urged that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be modified. The Tribunal also erred in not granting any amount under the head 'future prospects' and that, the amount awarded under conventional heads is also on lower side. Therefore, he urged that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be modified. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 7. Per contra, Shri Robin A. Lal appears on behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3, while submitting that although the insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the award impugned, but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no scope for enhancement of the amount of total compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal carefully. 9. As regards the assessment of monthly income of the deceased, despite there being no documentary evidence on record to prove the exact income of the deceased, the Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence on record, looking to his nature of work, assessed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis, which in my considered opinion, is not appropriate. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the minimum wages as is prevailed at the time of accident, it can safely be held that he could have easily earned Rs.5,000/- per month by doing furniture work. I, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. I, therefore, propose to re-compute the compensation taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.60,000/- per annum. The Tribunal was justified in determining the age of the deceased as 35 years at the time of accident and by applying the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% (Rs.24,000/-) towards increase in future income is added and after addition of Rs.24,000/-, the annual income would come to Rs.84,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd of amount (Rs.28,000/-) towards his personal and living expenses as done by the Tribunal, the total annual income would come to Rs.56,000/-. The Tribunal used multiplier 16 in the light of decision by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), while computing the total compensation. If the total annual income is multiplied by 16, then the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,96,000/-. 10. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant-wife and thus awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which, in my view, needs consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act in awarding just and proper compensation to the victims in motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Courts/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident cases is properly and reasonably compensated and in assessing what has been described as a just compensation under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. 11. In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the appellant, being wife of the deceased, is entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, in view of dictum rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellant is also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, in view of dictum rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellant is also entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads in place of Rs.15,000/- as made by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is entitled to be awarded a total sum of Rs.9,66,000/- as compensation in place of Rs.3,99,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/-, therefore, after deducting the same from the amount of compensation of Rs.9,66,000/-, the appellant is held entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,67,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein above. Rest of the conditions as made by the Tribunal shall remain intact. No order as to costs.