JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals(S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2469/2012, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2468/2012 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2470/2012), seeking reduction of the awarded compensations, have been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the common judgment and order dated 18.07.2012(hereinafter as ‘impugned award’) passed by the MACT, Kushalgarh(hereinafter as ‘the learned tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 57/2009, MAC Case No. 58/2009 and MAC Case No. 40/2009 respectively. As all the three appeals arise from the common order, the same are being decided by this common order and facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2469/2012 are being taken illustratively and the claimants in all the respective appeals, though different but are being referred to as claimants for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 05.01.2009 Gehrilal, Ramesh, Lalji were standing near a road and a truck bearing registration no. RJ03 GA 0015(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’), which was being driven by Respondent no. 7/Driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit them and as a result of the accident all of them died on spot. At the time of the accident the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company. 3. The claim case no. 57/2009 was filed seeking compensation on account of the death of Lalji(hereinafter as ‘deceased-1’), Claim case no. 58/2009 was filed seeking compensation on account of the death of Ramesh(hereinafter as ‘deceased-2’) and Claim Case no. 40/2009 was filed seeking compensation on account of the death of Gehrilal(hereinafter as deceased-3). The appellant/insurance company, Respondent no. 6/owner and Respondent no. 7/driver in their reply to the claim petitions denied the averments made therein. The learned tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed 4 issues. 4. The claimants examined three witness(AD1 to AD 3) and produced 17 documentary evidences. On the other hand the appellant/insurance company examined one witness(NAD1) and produced 11 documentary evidences. 5. After hearing the parties the learned tribunal vide the impugned award awarded Rs. 8,94,000/- as compensation in MAC Case No. 57/2009, Rs. 10,66,800/- in MAC Case No. 58/2009 and Rs.16,67,700/- in MAC Case No. 40/2009 along with interest @9% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment of the same and held the appellant/insurance company, respondent no. 8,94,000/- as compensation in MAC Case No. 57/2009, Rs. 10,66,800/- in MAC Case No. 58/2009 and Rs.16,67,700/- in MAC Case No. 40/2009 along with interest @9% from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment of the same and held the appellant/insurance company, respondent no. 6/owner and respondent no.7/driver jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded in the respective claim petitions. 6. Aggrieved by the same the appellant/insurance company has preferred these misc. appeals before this court. 7. As there is no dispute as to the facts of the case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company has restricted his arguments to the quantum of the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal in the respective claim petitions. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company submits with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 57/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2469/2012) that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-1(‘Lalji’) as Rs. 5,000/- per month in absence of any proof of income and the same ought to have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in making the deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-1 instead of 1/4. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company further submits with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 58/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2468/2012) that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-2(‘Ramesh’) as Rs.6,000/- per month in absence of any proof of income and the same ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in making the deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-2 instead of 1/4. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company further submits with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in making the deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-2 instead of 1/4. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company further submits with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 40/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2470/2012) that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-3(‘Gehrilal’) as Rs.10,000/- per month in absence of any proof of income and the same ought to have been assessed as per the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 17 instead of 16. He further submits that the learned tribunal has erred in making the deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-3 instead of 1/4. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants in all the appeals disputes the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company. 12. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This court, with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 57/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2469/2012), finds that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-1 as Rs. 5000/- on the ground that there was no proof with respect to the income. However, in absence of any proof of income, the same has to be assessed as per the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident(i.e., 05.01.2009), therefore, the income of the deceased-1 is assessed as Rs.2990/- considering him a skilled worker. Further, the learned tribunal has erred in making deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-1 instead of 1/4 as there were 5 dependants of the deceased-1, and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , deduction towards personal expenses ought to be 1/4(which is applicable when number of dependants are between 4 to 6). 14. This court, with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 58/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2468/2012), finds that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-2 as Rs. 14. This court, with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 58/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2468/2012), finds that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-2 as Rs. 6000/- on the ground that there was no proof with respect to the income. However, in absence of any proof of income, the same has to be assessed as per the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident(i.e., 05.01.2009), therefore, the income of the deceased-2 is assessed as Rs.2990/- considering him a skilled worker. Further, the learned tribunal has erred in making deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-2 instead of 1/4 as there were 5 dependants of the deceased-2, and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma(Supra), deduction towards personal expenses ought to be 1/4(which is applicable when number of dependants are between 4 to 6). 15. This court, with respect to the impugned award passed in MAC Case no. 40/2009(which is challenged in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2470/2012), finds that the learned tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased-3 as Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that there was no proof with respect to the income. However, in absence of any proof of income, the same has to be assessed as per the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident(i.e., 05.01.2009), therefore, the income of the deceased-3 is assessed as Rs.2990/- considering him a skilled worker. Further, the learned tribunal has erred in making deduction of 1/5 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-3 instead of 1/4 as there were 6 dependants of the deceased-3, and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma(Supra), deduction towards personal expenses ought to be 1/4(which is applicable when number of dependants are between 4 to 6). Further, this court finds that the learned tribunal even after determining the age of the deceased-3 as 35 years has applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 16 and the same deserves to be modified to 16 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma(Supra) as the multiplier applicable to the age group of 31- 35 years is 16. 16. This court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. 16. This court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divl. Manager, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , has held that even in an appeal by the insurer/owner, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. And where the compensation determined by the High Court is higher than the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, the appeal preferred by the insurer/owner can be dismissed. Also, if the overall amount of the compensation is being reduced under certain heads, it is open for the claimant to defend the awarded compensation by pointing out the errors/omissions in the award and as such the quantum of compensation can be enhanced/awarded under other heads (if the same deserves to be enhanced/awarded in those respective heads) so as to set off such reduction. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as follows: 6. …...Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that the claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections. 7. …. 8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 17. Further, this court finds that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- each under the head of consortium to the dependants of the deceased-1, deceased-2 and deceased-3 in the respective claim petitions and Rs. 5000/- under the head of funeral expenses in all the claim petitions. Further, the learned tribunal has not awarded future prospect and loss of estate in any of the respective claim petitions. Thus, this court, in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash(Supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , is of the view that the compensation awarded under the heads of consortium and funeral expenses in all the respective claim petitions deserves to be modified, and amount under heads of future prospect and loss of estate is to be added as a set off against the amount which is being reduced on account of reduction in income. 18. However, this court, with respect to S.B. C.M.A. No. 2469/2012, finds that if the just compensation that is allowable to the claimants thereunder is determined, taking income of the deceased-1 as Rs.2990/- per month, adding future prospect @40%, deducting 1/4 on account of personal expenses of the deceased-1 and adding consortium as Rs.2,40,000/-(48,000 x 5) and Rs. 18,000/- each under the heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate, the same comes to Rs. 9,54,240/-, which is higher than the compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal i.e., Rs.8,94,000/-. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash(Supra), S.B. C.M.A. No. 2469/2012 deserves to be dismissed. 18. Further, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal in MAC Case no. 58/2009 and MAC Case no. 40/2009 deserves to be modified as under: S.No. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as modified by this court 1. 18. Further, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned tribunal in MAC Case no. 58/2009 and MAC Case no. 40/2009 deserves to be modified as under: S.No. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as modified by this court 1. (add)Compensation towards loss of dependency 2990(Minimum wages per month) +1196(future prospect @40%)– 1046 (1/4 deduction on account of personal expenses) x 12 x 18(Multiplier) = Rs.6,78,240/- Rs.10,36,800/ Rs.6,78,240/ 2. (add)Loss of Consortium 48,000 x 5= 2,40,000/- Rs. 25,000/ Rs.2,40,000/ 3. (add)Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000 / Rs.18,000/ 4. Loss of estate nil Rs. 18,000/- Gross Total Rs.10,66,800/ Rs.9,54,240/ Reduced amount (after deducting from the amount as awarded by the learned tribunal) Rs.1,12,560/- S.B. C.M.A. No. 2470/2012(Appeal against MAC Case no. 40/2009): S.N o. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as modified by this court 1. (add)Compensation towards loss of dependency 2990(Minimum wages per month) +1196(future prospect @40%)– 1046 (1/4 deduction on account of personal expenses) x 12 x 16(Multiplier) = Rs.6,02,880/- Rs.16,32,000/ Rs.6,02,880/ 2. (add)Loss of Consortium 48,000 x 6= 2,88,000/- Rs. 30,000/ Rs.2,88,000/ 3. (add)Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000 / Rs.18,000/ 4. Loss of estate nil Rs. 18,000/ Gross Total Rs.16,67,000/ Rs.9,26,880/ Reduced amount (after deducting from the amount as awarded by the learned tribunal) Rs.7,40,120/- 19. Accordingly, in view of the discussion in the above paragraphs S.B. C.M.A. No. 2469/2012 is dismissed and S.B. C.M.A. No. 2468/2012 and S.B. C.M.A. No. 2470/2012 are partly allowed. 20. The claimants in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2468/2012 are thus held entitled to get compensation of Rs.9,54,240/- instead of Rs.10,66,800/-, along with interest @9% p.a.(same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the date of filing of the claim petition. 21. The claimants in S.B. C.M.A. No. 2470/2012 are thus held entitled to get compensation of Rs.9,26,880/- instead of Rs.16,67,000/-, along with interest @9% p.a.(same as awarded by the learned tribunal) from the date of filing of the claim petition. 22. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal stands modified qua MAC Case no. 40/2009 and MAC Case no. 58/2009. The claimants in all the three appeals are held entitled to get the compensation in the same manner as directed by the learned tribunal. The amount of compensation if any paid or disbursed shall be adjusted.