JUDGMENT : Sandeep N. Bhatt, J. 1.1. Leave to amend the cause title - spelling of appellant No.1 is granted. 1.2. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant/s - original claimant/s - legal heirs of the deceased - Ramayanram @ Ramayanprasad Jataram Mochi, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.-8), Gandhidham, District : Kachchh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.125 of 2009, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,74,800/- with 7.5% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding Opponents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of Trailer Dumper No.GJ-12-Z-3684 jointly and severally liable to 50% amount of compensation and opponents No.4 and 5 i.e. owner and insurance company of Dumper No.GJ-12-V-8756 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% amount of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 That on 15.01.2009 on or about 12:00 p.m., the deceased - Ramayanram @ Ramayanprasad Jataram Mochi, husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 and son of claimants No.3 and 4, was coming to Gandhidham from Kandla Port by driving Dumper bearing registration No. GJ- 12-V-8756, at that time, at West Gate No.1 from Jira Point Circle, the accident had been occurred between Trailer Dumper No.GJ-12-Z-3684 driven by opponent No.1 and Dumper No.GJ-12-V-8756 driven by the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased had sustained serious and grievous injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased - widow, one minor daughter and parents have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.14 lakhs with cost and interest for unnatural and untimely death against the present respondents before the Tribunal. 2.2. Notices were served to the opponents. Opponents No.1 and 2 - driver and owner of the Trailer Dumper did not appear and contest the claim petition. Opponent No.3 - insurance company of the Trailer Dumper, Opponent No.4 - owner of Dumper and Opponent No.5 - insurance company of Dumper have appeared and filed their written statements / objections at Exh.19, 36 and 33, respectively. All have denied the claim and disputed all the averments made by the claimant in the claim petition. 2.3. The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.37. The oral as well as documentary evidence were led by the rival parties before the Tribunal. All have denied the claim and disputed all the averments made by the claimant in the claim petition. 2.3. The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.37. The oral as well as documentary evidence were led by the rival parties before the Tribunal. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence and submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as noted above. 2.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant/s for enhancement. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Modi for the appellant/s - claimant/s has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount of award is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like prospective income of the deceased, negligence, liability and family circumstances, etc. He has submitted that the deceased was aged about only 35 years at the time of accident and was doing driving work. He has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the minimum wage as per the Minimum Wages Act was Rs.133/- per day, which comes to approximately Rs.4,000/- per month. He has fairly submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the prospective income, deduction of personal expenses looking to the age of the deceased and multiplier. He has submitted that therefore, considering the loss of dependency, it would be calculated as Rs.4,000/- as monthly income plus Rs.1,600/- as 40% prospective income minus Rs.1,400/- as personal expenses (1/4) multiplied by 12 months and multiplied by 16 multiplier would come to Rs.8,06,400/- total future loss, which should be awarded to the claimants by the learned Tribunal. He has further submitted that considering the general and non-pecuniary damages, the learned Tribunal should award Rs.16,500/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. He has also submitted that towards loss of consortium, there are five dependents and therefore, it would be awarded Rs.1,32,000/- should be awarded as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 . He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and this appeal may be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 . He has submitted that the compensation is required to be enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and this appeal may be allowed. 4. Per contra, Mr. K.V. Gadhia and Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocates for respondent No.3 and 5 - insurance company of the Trailer Dumper and Dumper, respectively, have submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased, the age of the deceased, the dependency and future aspect of income. They have submitted that under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation. They have submitted that the amount under the head of loss of consortium is just and proper and only one is major and others are the minor children. They have submitted that this appeal may be dismissed and no interference be made by this Court. 5. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants. 6.1. I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties. I have perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. From the record, it transpires that the deceased was aged about 35 years and was serving as a driver and minimum wage was approximately Rs.133/- per day at the relevant point of time. Therefore, it should be considered as per day income of the deceased. Therefore, it would come to Rs.4,000/- per month and by adding 40% prospective income, as calculated by the learned Tribunal, it would come to Rs.1,600/- and therefore, total income comes to Rs.5,600/- per month. Therefore, it should be considered as per day income of the deceased. Therefore, it would come to Rs.4,000/- per month and by adding 40% prospective income, as calculated by the learned Tribunal, it would come to Rs.1,600/- and therefore, total income comes to Rs.5,600/- per month. Since the deceased is aged about 35 years, 1/4 would proper to be deducted as personal expenses and therefore, it would come to Rs.1,400/-. Hence, the income would come to Rs.4,200/- per month and therefore, yearly, it would come to Rs.50,400/- and applying 16 multiplier as per the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it would come to Rs.8,06,400/- as future loss, which is required to be awarded to the claimants. 6.2. Further, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (supra), as general and non-pecuniary damages, under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses, if we award Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/-, respectively, which would be the just and proper compensation. 6.3. Further, the dependents to the deceased are the widow, one minor daughter and parents. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 , Rs.40,000/- consortium to each dependent and 10% rise, which comes to Rs.44,000/- as consortium to each dependents, which comes to Rs.1,32,000/-, which should be awarded to the claimants. 6.4. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. 7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.9,71,400/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.6,74,800/-, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.2,96,600/- would be the enhanced amount of compensation payable to the claimant/s. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1. The present appeal is partly allowed. 8.2. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.6,74,800/-, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.2,96,600/- would be the enhanced amount of compensation payable to the claimant/s. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1. The present appeal is partly allowed. 8.2. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.2,96,600/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8.3. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 8.4. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 8.5. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.