JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount quantified and awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (‘Tribunal’) by its award dated 08.08.2023 in MAC Case No.86/2020 (C.I.S. No.86/2020), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.33,31,062/- in favour of claimant along with interest @ 6.5% p.a. The liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.90,90,000/- on account of unfortunate death of their sole breadwinner late Sh. Joga Ram, who lost his life in the accident took place on 04.03.2020. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 04.03.2020 at about 09:30 am, deceased Joga Ram was going on his Moped bearing registration number RJ-24-SM-6910 to his workshop from village Gol to Paldi-M, then on NH No.62 on Paldi-M Bypass, when he reached at Morli overbridge, a Trailor, which was driven by its driver non-claimant No.1 in negligent manner, hit the deceased from behind. As a result of which, Joga Ram sustained injuries and died on spot. An FIR No.39/2020 was lodged at Police Station Paldi-M, wherein after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for offences under Sections 279, 304 A of IPC before the competent court. In the claim petition, it was stated that deceased Joga Ram was working as Office Attendant in Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Paldi-M and the claimants were his dependents. It was stated that deceased was getting salary of Rs.38,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the claimants on 24.08.2020 claiming compensation under various heads. 3. After issuance of the notices of the claim petition and despite service of the summons upon the non-claimant No.1, nobody put in appearance on his behalf and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against him. Reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.2 while denying the contents of the claim petition. It was stated that on 04.03.2020 the deceased himself was negligent in plying his moped and on account of slipping of the moped, he received injuries, however, a false case was foisted against him. Reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.2 while denying the contents of the claim petition. It was stated that on 04.03.2020 the deceased himself was negligent in plying his moped and on account of slipping of the moped, he received injuries, however, a false case was foisted against him. Thus, it was prayed that the claim petition be rejected. 4. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. insurance company, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the contents of the same. It was however admitted by the insurance company that the vehicle was insured with it from 20.11.2019 to 19.11.2020. It was stated that the offending vehicle was plied by its driver in correct direction, however, the deceased while overtaking another vehicle the deceased met with the accident. It was further alleged that the offending vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and valid/effective licence by its driver, therefore, it was prayed that the claim petition be rejected. 5. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the parties, settled four issues for determination. 6. For proving his case, the appellant examined AW.1 Harish Kumar and AW.2 Askar Khan (eyewitness) and also placed on record documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to 28. The Non-claimants, however, did not lead any evidence. 7. The learned Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 08.08.2023 while deciding Issue No.1, after considering the evidence produced before it, has observed that FIR (Ex.2) was lodged by the son of the deceased, wherein after investigation charge sheet (Ex.1) was filed against the driver/non-claimant No.1 for offences under Section 279 and 304 A of IPC. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that though the non-claimants pleaded that the accident took place due to negligent driving of rider of moped, however, neither any evidence was produced, nor report was lodged by the non-claimants. The claimants in support of their claim examined AW.2 Askar Khan, who was the eyewitness of the incident, whose testimony was not refuted by leading plausible evidence by the non-claimants. The learned Tribunal thus considering the evidence available on record found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Trailor. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.2 has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.43,348/- and awarded total compensation of Rs.33,31,062/- under various heads. The learned Tribunal thus considering the evidence available on record found that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Trailor. The learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.2 has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.43,348/- and awarded total compensation of Rs.33,31,062/- under various heads. The learned Tribunal decided the Issue No.3 against the non-claimant No.3 insurance company. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants has strenuously urged that though the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation under the head of loss of income has assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.43,348/-, however, miserably erred in calculating the annual income of the deceased as Rs.4,55,632/- instead of Rs.5,20,176/- and, therefore, the said error deserves to be corrected and compensation under the head of loss of income deserves to be enhanced while considering the annual income of the deceased at Rs.5,20,176/- and adding future prospects with appropriate multiplier. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the accident took place in the year 2020 and the as per the law propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein it has been held that amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, will be increased up to 10% in every three years. Thus, the compensation awarded under the said heads also deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium also deserves enhancement in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, which calls for no interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and through scanned the material available on record. 11. In order to thrash out the matter for ascertaining cause of accident, resulting in death, the impugned award deserves judicial scrutiny on Issue No.2. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal though has considered and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.43,348/-, however, erred while calculating the annual income of the deceased as Rs.4,55,632/- instead of Rs.5,20,176/- and, therefore, the said error deserves to be corrected. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal though has considered and assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.43,348/-, however, erred while calculating the annual income of the deceased as Rs.4,55,632/- instead of Rs.5,20,176/- and, therefore, the said error deserves to be corrected. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded 15% towards future prospects, which looking to the age and other material available on record, is appropriate. This Court finds that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal 9 is also proper. The claimants are also entitled to receive compensation under the loss of consortium @ 48,000/- each and the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses are also enhanced. 12. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the instant misc. appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 08.08.2023 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.86/2020 (C.I.S. No.86/2020) is modified accordingly and the claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation as under: - S. No. Particulars Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded and enhanced by this Court 1. Compensation under the head of loss of income Rs.30,61,062/- Rs.35,06,418/- 43,348 x 12 = Rs.5,20,176/ Less Income Tax Rs. 12,000/ Yearly Income Rs.5,08,176/ Add: Future Prospects @ 15% Rs. 76,226/ Rs.5,84,402/ Less 1/3rd deduction Rs.1,94,800/ Rs.3,89,602/ 3,89,602 x 9 = Rs.35,06,418/- Multiplier of 9 is applied. 2. Consortium (Rs.48,000 x 6) Rs.2,40,000 Rs.2,88,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,000/- Grand Total Rs.33,31,062/- Rs.38,30,418/- Less amount awarded by learned Tribunal Rs.33,31,062/- Enhanced Amount Rs.4,99,356/- 13. The appellants/claimants are thus held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.4,99,356/-. The respondents/non-claimants are accordingly directed to pay the said enhanced compensation to the appellants/claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with interest @ 6.5%, as awarded by learned Tribunal.