ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. By way of these misc. appeals, the appellants have challenged the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in MACT Cases Nos.208/2015 & 209/2015; whereby, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions of the appellants and awarded quantum of compensation in their favour while holding the respondents-owner and driver, liable to pay the said quantum of compensation. 2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both these misc. appeals, therefore, the same are decided together by this common order. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2011, deceased Naveen and Bhavya were returning to their home with one of their relatives on a motorcycle from Ambaji Temple. At about 12.00 PM near Sembaliya Village, a GSRTC bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18/Y-4898, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to their motorcycle from behind and as a result whereof, Naveen and Bhavya sustained injuries and they died on the spot. FIR for the said incident came to be lodged at Police Station Kheraj (Sabarkantha) and charge-sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending bus. Claim petitions were filed by the claimants before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation with interest. Respondents were summoned through the notices and they filed reply to the claim petitions while denying averments contained in the claim petition. 4. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed four issues. Oral as well as documentary evidences were produced by the claimants in support of their claim petitions whereas, the respondents got examined three witnesses and as many as five documents in support of their case. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions of the claimants by awarding Rs.2,30,000/- (SBCMA No.3012/2017) and Rs.6.35,800/- (SBCMA No.3013/2017) as compensation in their favour and thus, being dissatisfied of the same, the appellants herein have preferred these misc. appeals. 6. There is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case in SBCMA No.3012/2017, learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants has restricted his submissions only to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, while submitting that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding a meager compensation on account of the death of the deceased child. appeals. 6. There is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case in SBCMA No.3012/2017, learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants has restricted his submissions only to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, while submitting that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding a meager compensation on account of the death of the deceased child. In SBCMA No.3013/2017, learned counsel representing the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while calculating the quantum of compensation, as the same is on a lower side. He, also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in making a deduction of 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased, which ought to have been 1/4th looking to the number of dependents i.e. 4 including father. He has also challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding income of the deceased. He thus, urges that the amount of compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads viz. loss of income, loss of estate and loss of consortium, deserves to be enhanced/modified as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-GSRTC, opposes and submits that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and thus, the same does not warrants any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 9. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has awarded the lump-sum amount of Rs.2,30,000/- as quantum of compensation to the appellants/claimants. However, this Court finds that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Ors. Vs. Lala and Ors. : [ (2014) 1 SCC 244 ], where the age of the deceased child was 10 years, has taken the notional income of the deceased child as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. looking to the facts and circumstances. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Ors. : [ (2022) 1 SCC 317 ], where the age of the deceased child was 7 years, has taken notional income of the deceased child as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. looking to the facts and circumstances. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari and Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Ors. : [ (2022) 1 SCC 317 ], where the age of the deceased child was 7 years, has taken notional income of the deceased child as Rs. 25,000/- p.a. and after applying Multiplier of 15 granted total of Rs. 3,75,000/- under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ and also an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the parents under the head of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto and Ors : [ (2023) 1 SCC 204 ], where the age of the deceased child was 12 years, has taken the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- p.a. including future prospect and applied Multiplier of 15 to arrive at the compensation awardable under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ and awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads. 10. Thus, looking to the age of the deceased child (i.e., 6 years) and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the above cited judgments, this court deems it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased child as Rs.25,000/- p.a. Also, the applicable multiplier would be of 15 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : [2022 INSC 1108]. Further, looking into the facts of the instant case where there are four claimants including mother, son, wife and father of the deceased, this court deems it just to award Rs.1,94,000/- (rounded off from Rs.1,93,600/-) towards conventional heads. 11. Thus, in view of discussion in the above paragraphs the compensation awardable to the appellants/claimants in SBCMA No.3012/2017, is as under: Particulars Awarded by Tribunal Awarded/modified by the Court Loss of dependancy(i.e. Rs.25000/- x15) [A] Rs.2,30,000/-(Lump-sum)[C] Rs.3,75,000/- Conventional Heads[B] Rs.1,94,000/- Total [A] + [B] Rs.5,69,000/- [D] Enhanced Amount[D]-[C] Rs.3,39,000/- 12. Accordingly, the misc. appeal being SBCMA No.3012/2017, preferred by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly. Accordingly, the misc. appeal being SBCMA No.3012/2017, preferred by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is modified accordingly. The appellants/claimants are held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.3,39,000 /- along with interest as awarded by the learned tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition in the same manner as directed by the learned tribunal. The amount of compensation, if any disbursed to the appellants/claimants, shall be adjusted accordingly. No order as to costs. 13. In SBCMA No.3013/2017, this Court finds that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of loss of consortium, deserves to be modified to the extent of Rs.48,400/-to each of the claimants (mother, father, wife and son) in light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the age of the deceased is 30 years. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards Future Prospects, and the same deserves to be awarded @ 40% in light of Pranay Sethi (supra). Also, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards Loss of Estate and awarded a meager amount under the head of funeral expenses, thus, the amount under both these heads; deserves to be Rs.18,150/-. Furthermore, this Court does not finds any force in the contention of the appellants that deduction ought to be 1/4th after considering father as a dependent. The reason being, as per the ratio of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the father is not considered as the dependent on his son, subject to evidence to the contrary and as in the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, thus, the father cannot be considered to be a dependent in the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary, thus, the father cannot be considered to be a dependent in this case. Hence, deduction made by learned Tribunal towards personal expenses warrants no interference. 14. Further, the learned Tribunal, in absence of any proof of income, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages prevalent as on the date of the accident, while considering the deceased as a skilled labour. 15. Hence, deduction made by learned Tribunal towards personal expenses warrants no interference. 14. Further, the learned Tribunal, in absence of any proof of income, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages prevalent as on the date of the accident, while considering the deceased as a skilled labour. 15. Thus, the quantum of compensation awardable to the claimants in SBCMA No.3013/2017, is as under:- S.No. Particulars Amount as awarded by the learned tribunal Amount as awarded/modified by this court 1. (add) Compensation towards loss of dependency: 4,050(per month) + 1,620 (future prospect @40%) – 1,890(1/3 deduction on account of personal expenses) x 12 x 17 (Multiplier) = Rs.7,71,120/- [A] Rs.5,50,800/- Rs.7,71,120/- 2 (add) Loss of Consortium 48,400 x 4 = 1,93,600/- [B] Rs. 80,000/- Rs.1,93,600/- 3 (add) Funeral Expenses [C] Rs.5,000 /- Rs.18,150/- 4 (add) Loss of Estate [D] Nil Rs. 18,150/- Gross Total [A]+[B]+[C]+[D] Rs.6,35,800/- [E] Rs.10,01,020/- [F] Enhanced Amount [F]-[E] Rs.3,65,220/- 16. Accordingly, the misc. appeal being SBCMA No.3013/2017 preferred by the claimants/appellants is partly allowed. The judgment-cum-award dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in MACT Case No.209/2015; is enhanced/modified in the terms stated above. The claimants are thus, held entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.3,65,220/- in accordance with the directions given by the learned Tribunal. 17. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Any amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted accordingly. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs. 18. A copy of this order be placed in each file.