JUDGMENT : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The appeals, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 513/2014 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 544/2014 have been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 21.12.2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu, (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Cases No. 24/2009 and 26/2009, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the respondents/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 7,69,000/- and 6,52,000/- respectivley, in favour of respondents/claimants along with interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of filing the claim petitions. 2. The appeals, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 564/2015 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 571/2015 have been preferred by the claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 21.12.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Cases No. 24/2009 and 23/2009, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants and awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 7,69,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petitions. 3. All the appeals are being decided by this common order, however the facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 513/2014 are illustratively taken for consideration. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, on 08.01.2009, when the respondent/claimant no .1 was travelling with her husband on a camel cart along with Shravan, Kumari Bimla, Sipu Devi, Hanuman (aged 1 year) and Chunaram to Khandela brick kilns ¼bZV HkV~Vs½ for work, at 10:00 PM, at Village Trilokpura near NH-11, a truck bearing no. RJ-13-GA-2866, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company hit the cart on account of which all the passengers travelling in the camel cart sustained injuries. On account of the said injuries, Smt. Sipu, Hanuman and the husband of the respondent/claimant no. 1, Bhiwa Ram died and thus their claims were presented before the learned Tribunal, which has been assailed by way of filing the present appeal and the award and judgment dated 21.12.2013 has been challenged by way of instant appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company makes a limited submission towards the fastening of the negligence of the camel cart in the said incident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company makes a limited submission towards the fastening of the negligence of the camel cart in the said incident. He thus submits that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the camel cart inasmuch as no reflector was attached to the cart, making it difficult for the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. truck, to see the camel cart in the night. He also submits that since the driver as well as the passengers of the camel cart were asleep, they did not listen to the horn of the offending vehicle and acted accordingly thereafter, on account of which the truck collided with the camel cart and thus, te appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation on account of negligence of the driver of the camel cart. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the truck as it was driving at a very high speed, in a very rash and negligent manner, when it hit the camel cart. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants also submits that the amount of compensation awarded in case of death of Late Bhiwa Ram under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estates is on the lower side and also, the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding the future prospects. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimants also submits that the amount of compensation awarded in case of death of Hanuman, aged 1 year, is also on a lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced. 9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the record, has observed that all the witnesses have unianimously deposed this fact that the truck collided with the camel cart from behind and it is on account of the said collision that the truck also overturned. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the deposition of AW-3, Mana Ram who stated that the truck had overturned on the spot on account of the said accident. 11. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the deposition of AW-3, Mana Ram who stated that the truck had overturned on the spot on account of the said accident. 11. This Court also finds that the statements of witnesses have been confirmed by the FIR also, and after looking at the FIR as well as Site-Plan, the learned Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, the said accident occurred as on 08.01.2009, on NH-11, the truck bearing no. RJ-13-GA-2866, was being driven rashly and negligently & collided with the camel cart from behind, as a result of which 3 people died and 2 persons suffered injuries, and thus, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, pertaining to the negligence of the said incident. 12. Nevertheless, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 24/2009 deserves to be enhanced in light of the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 , under the heads of future propects, consortium and loss of estates. This Court also finds that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 23/2009 deserves to be enhanced and the Court deems it fit to assess a just compensation which is reasonable according to the underlying facts and circumstances of the case along with the evidence placed on record, in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Others, Civil Appeal No. 7255 of 2022 decided on 13.10.2022 and Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and Another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another, Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021 decided on 16.11.2021. 13. Thus, after arriving at the conclusion that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be enhanced in MAC Case No. 24/2009 and 23/2009, this Court directed both the counsel to jointly submit the calculation of the compensation awardable to the claimants, afresh in light of the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 which they have furnished before this court in a tabular form as below: Particulars Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by the Court Loss of Income of the deceased (4,500 x 12 x 18) Rs. 9,72,000/- Rs. 9,72,000/- Adding future prospects @ 40% (i.e. 9,72,000/- + 40% of 9,72,000/-) Not awarded Rs. 13,60,800/- Deducting ¼ towards personal expenses (i.e. 13,60,800 - ¼ of 13,60,800) [A] Rs. 7,29,000/- Rs. 10,20,600/- Consortium (48,000 x 5) [B] (5,000 x 3) + (5,000 x 3) = Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 2,40,000/- Loss of Estate [C] Not awarded Rs. 18,000/- Funeral Expenses [D] Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 7,69,000/- [E] Rs. 12,96,600/- [F] Enhanced amount [F-E] Rs. 5,27,600/- S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 571/2015: Particulars Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by the Court Compensation for death of one year old child (lump sum) Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 1,70,000/- Consortium (48,000 x 3) (5,000 x 3 = Rs. 15,000/-) Rs. 1,44,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 18,000/- Loss of Estates Not awarded Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 1,70,000/- Rs. 3,30,000/- Enhanced amount Rs. 1,80,000/- 14. Accordingly, the appeals, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 564/2015 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 571/2015 are partly allowed and the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in MAC Case No. 24/2009 is enhanced by Rs. 5,27,600/- and in MAC Case No. 23/2009 is enhanced by Rs. 1,80,000/- in the terms stated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum, as determined by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition. 15. Also, the appeals, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 513/2014 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 544/2014, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company are dismissed. 16. The award judgment-cum-award dated 21.12.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh in MAC Case No. 23/2009, 24/2009 and 26/2009 is modified accordingly. 17. Any amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted accordingly. No costs.