JUDGMENT : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The Insurance Company (non-claimant No.3) and claimants, both have filed these misc. appeals under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (Act) challenging the judgment and award dated 11.12.2015 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.356/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to tune of Rs.6,24,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 28.10.2013. All the non-claimants were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants, who are sister and elder brother of deceased Nathulal, preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- on account of untimely death of Nathulal. In the claim petition it was stated that on 12.10.2013 at about 09:00 pm, Nathulal after fetching water was coming to his home, near National High Hotel, he was hit from behind by offending Truck bearing registration number GJ-18-T-9132, coming from Kamlighat, on account of rash and negligent driving of its driver. As a result of which, Nathulal died on the spot. 3. Despite service of summons of the claim petition upon non-claimants No. 1 and 2, nobody appeared on their behalf and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them. No reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.4. 4. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimant No.3 Insurance Company by filing its reply while denying involvement of the insured vehicle on the relevant day and time and the deceased himself was negligent for the accident. It was further stated that the claimants were not the dependent upon the deceased. It was further stated that there was violation of the conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. 5. It was further stated that the claimants were not the dependent upon the deceased. It was further stated that there was violation of the conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation. 5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed two issues, which inter-alia reads as under: ^^1- D;k fnukad 12-10-2013 dks le; yxHkx 9-00 ih-,e- ij jktekxZ gksVy ds ikl] xzke c?kkuk] ,u-,p- 8 ij iqfyl Fkkuk fnosj {ks= esa Vªd la[;k th-ts-18&Vh&9132 dks mlds pkyd us rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dj nh ftlls ukFkwyky dh e`R;q gks x;h\ 2- D;k izkFkhZx.k mDr nq?kZVuk esa mDr e`rd dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA ;fn gka] rks fdl i{kdkj ls fdruh jkf’k\ 6. In support of their claim petition, the claimants examined AW. 1- Ms. Dakhu and AW. 2 Sanwra and also exhibited certain documents as Ex.1 to Ex.12. 7. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and thereby awarded compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. in favour of claimants. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the appellant Insurance Company has challenged the judgment impugned and the claimants have filed appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 9. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company viz. CMA No.634/2016 was admitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.03.2016 and an interim order was also passed staying the execution of the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel appearing for appellant Insurance Company submitted that the deceased himself was married and was having a son, however, the wife and son of the deceased were not impleaded party in the claim petition, though they were necessary and proper party and, therefore, claim petition itself was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that when first class heirs of deceased were there, the submitted being the sister and elder brother of deceased could not have claimed compensation by filing the claim petition. While adverting to the testimony of AW.1 Ms. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that when first class heirs of deceased were there, the submitted being the sister and elder brother of deceased could not have claimed compensation by filing the claim petition. While adverting to the testimony of AW.1 Ms. Dakhu (Claimant No.1) and AW.2 Sanwra, nephew of the claimants, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that there was material contradiction in their testimony, inasmuch as AW.1 in her statement deposed that the deceased was unmarried whereas AW.2 stated that the deceased was married and one child was also there. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company further submitted that the claimant No.1, being major woman cannot be said to be solely dependent upon the income of the deceased and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation in favour of claimant No.1. Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company further questioned awarding of 30% future prospects, inasmuch as the deceased was not in a stable job having regular source of income. Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the claimants in this regard, learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding 30% future prospects to the claimants. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants (Appellants in CMA No.598/2016) vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and the same deserves to be suitably enhanced. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the claimant No.1 being unmarried sister of the deceased was dependent upon the income of the deceased and the parents of claimants had expired long back. He further submitted that so far as claimant No.2 is concerned, he is a mentally retarded person, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering him as dependent upon the income of the deceased. He further submitted that so far as claimant No.2 is concerned, he is a mentally retarded person, therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering him as dependent upon the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that deceased was 30 years of age at the time of accident, however, the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the age of the deceased as 40 years, merely on the basis that in the claim petition and in the statement it was stated that deceased was 4-5 year younger to Mangilal (claimant No.2) and the age of claimant No.2 was mentioned in the claim petition as 45 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal observed that the deceased was 40 years of age and applied the lesser multiplier of 14. Learned counsel for the claimants further argued that the deceased was blacksmith by profession and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of Rs.4980/-, which was prevalent minimum wage of an unskilled labour. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the had of loss of consortium to claimant No.2, who is none other than the elder brother of deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the compensation awarded under the head of funeral, loss of estate and transportation charges are also on lower side, which also deserves to be enhanced. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 14. This Court finds that the claimant No.1, who is sister of the deceased in her statements has specifically deposed that difference in the age between the deceased brother and claimant No.2 (Mangilal) was 4-5 years and upon perusal of the claim petition, it is seen that the age of the elder brother (claimant No.2), namely, Mangilal was shown as 45 years, and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal and for this Court as well to consider the age of the deceased as 30 years and thus the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the deceased as 40 years. Thus, looking to the age of the deceased, no error has been committed by learned Tribunal in awarding 30% towards future prospects. 15. Thus, looking to the age of the deceased, no error has been committed by learned Tribunal in awarding 30% towards future prospects. 15. This Court also finds that though it has been argued by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that as per the testimony of AW.2 Sanwla, the deceased was a married and was having an issue, but no investigation has been made by the Insurance Company in this regard, inasmuch as except the statement of AW.2, there is nothing plausible on record to even presume that the deceased was married, therefore, this Court finds no force in the contention raised by counsel for the Insurance Company that the deceased was married, however, his wife and son were not impleaded as party in the claim petition. Further, so far as claimant No.1 is concerned, she being unmarried sister and her parents had expired, was dependent upon the income of the deceased. This Court also considered the submission made by counsel for the claimants that the claimant No.2 was a mentally retarded person, however, no medical evidence in this regard was produced by the claimants in this regard and, therefore, it cannot be believed that the claimant No.2 was a mentally retarded person and was dependent upon the deceased for his livelihood. 16. This Court also finds that though in the claim petition and here in misc. appeal (CMA No.598), the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.9000/- per months, however, no evidence in this regard was adduced, therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income as per the prevailing minimum wages of an unskilled labour at the relevant time at Rs.4980/-. Also, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded 30% towards future prospects looking to the age of the deceased as 40 years. 17. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company (CMA No.634/2016) and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. This Court, however, finds considerable force in the contentions raised by counsel for the claimants that the claimant No.2, being brother of the deceased, was also entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of consortium, which this Court hereby grants. 18. This Court, however, finds considerable force in the contentions raised by counsel for the claimants that the claimant No.2, being brother of the deceased, was also entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of consortium, which this Court hereby grants. 18. Also, a meager amount of Rs.2000/- towards loss of estate has been given by the learned Tribunal, which also requires to be enhanced in the light of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi : (2017) 16 SCC 680 and thus an amount of Rs.18,150/- is awarded. 19. Accordingly, the misc. appeal (CMA No.598/2016) preferred by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed. Claimant No.2 Mangilal) (brother of the deceased) is held entitled to receive compensation under the head of loss of consortium at Rs.48,400/-and the claimants are held entitled to get compensation under the head of loss of estate at Rs.18,150/-. Thus, the claimants are held entitle to get compensation of Rs.66,550/- in addition to what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e. Rs.6,24,000/- along with interest as awarded by learned Tribunal. The claimants shall be entitled to receive compensation in terms of the award passed by learned Tribunal. The amount of compensation withheld under the interim order of this Court shall be paid to the claimants within a period of four weeks from the date of passing this judgment. No costs.