JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation for Rs. 15,49,470/- as against the judgment and award dated 22.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) Himatnagar, Sabarkantha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 956 of 1997. By the said judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition by granting compensation of Rs. 4,09,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization as well as with proportionate costs of the petition. 2. The facts of the case as emerged on record are as under: 2.1. Three different claim petitions were moved before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act including the present claim petition preferred by the present appellants-original claimants. The same were heard and decided by the common impugned judgment and award. The claim petitions heard together arise out of the same accident involving an offending vehicle being Jeep RJ-12T-0032. 2.2. On 14.6.1997, the original opponent no. 1 who was driving the offending jeep in excessive speed and in rash and negligent manner, lost his control over the steering and the jeep went off the road. It further proceeded in a ditch on the southern side of the road, whereby, the said vehicle dashed with a tree causing fatal injuries to the persons traveling in the jeep. 2.3. The husband of the original applicant no. 1 Nathubhai Kuberji sustained fatal injuries, on account of which, he died. The accident was reported with Shamlaji Police Station, which was registered as CR - I No. 68 of 1997. 2.4. The claim petition came to be filed by the family members of the deceased Nathubhai Patel which include his three children and his wife and mother. The minor children- applicant nos. 2 and 3 were represented through their natural guardian i.e. wife of the deceased. The claim of compensation of Rs. 15,59,470/- was initially preferred towards the death of the deceased in the said motor accident, which was later on enhanced for additional compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. 3. The minor children- applicant nos. 2 and 3 were represented through their natural guardian i.e. wife of the deceased. The claim of compensation of Rs. 15,59,470/- was initially preferred towards the death of the deceased in the said motor accident, which was later on enhanced for additional compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. 3. It was the case of the applicants that deceased Nathubhai Kuberji was aged about 34 years and since he had technical knowledge as a pipe fitter, he had traveled abroad to Kuwait to work as a pipe fitter in a National Company for Mechanical and Electrical Works Limited at Kuwait. It was contended before the Tribunal that the passport was issued by the Government of India on 31.3.1994 and the Visa period sanctioned was for five years i.e. up to 22.6.1999 and the deceased had stayed back at Kuwait till 1.5.1997. It was further contended that the deceased had returned back to India to attend marriage at his village Deval in the month of May, 1997. 4. The wife of the deceased had deposed before the Court that during the period from 1.7.1997 to 2.5.1997 the deceased had earned income of 168.750 Dinar and the deceased was paid 200 Dinar for a period of 32 days while he was on leave. It was further submitted that at the time of accident the conversion rate of the Dinar to Rupees was Rs. 180.251 per Dinar and thus, it was submitted that the deceased had saved Rs. 43,605/- while he had returned back to India. By referring to the aforesaid evidence, it was submitted that the income of the deceased if converted into Indian Currency would come to around Rs. 20,781/- per month and Rs. 2,49,377/- per year. 5. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the applicants have placed on record various documentary evidence, which includes translated statement of salary account at Exh.80, which shows that the deceased was working in Mechanical and Electrical Company Limited on 1.2.1996 for daily wages of 6.250 Dinar. It further transpires that the deceased was working as daily wage laborer and was marked as employee no. 42.40. It further transpires that the deceased was working as daily wage laborer and was marked as employee no. 42.40. The applicants have produced certificate of end service at Exh.33, which goes to indicate that deceased was working as pipe fitter starting from 5.4.1994 to 4.6.1997 and has earned comprehensive salary of KD 6.250 (daily) and the date of termination of his service is indicated as 4.6.1997. The applicants have also placed on record the currency converter results of 14.6.1997 at Exh.36, which shows that as against 6.250 Kuwait Dinar, converted Indian Currency in Rupees would be equivalent to Rs. 739.068. The applicants have also produced on record the application form of the National Company for Mechanical and Electrical Works Limited at mark 10/3, 20/4 and 20/5 wherein, date of birth of deceased is indicated as 24.1.1963. The end of the certificate is placed on record at Exh.33, which also reflects the basic salary of the deceased as 6.250 Kuwait Dinar. Analysis by Tribunal: 6. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the aforesaid oral as well as documentary evidence led by the Claimants and after taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case have refused to accept such evidence in absence of examination of any witness by the original claimants. The Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the income of the deceased is not proved and has therefore, refused to consider the case of the claimants for prospective income. The Tribunal has in absence of any evidence with regard to the income being proved by the Claimants, proceeded to determine the loss of dependency benefits by treating Rs. 3,000/- as notional income to be just and reasonable noticing the nature of work of the deceased who was serving as pipe fitter on daily wage basis. The Tribunal has thereafter deducted 1/3rd amount for personal expenses of the deceased and has treated loss of dependency of the applicants for Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 24,000/- p.a. The Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 16 and has accordingly granted future loss of dependency benefits to Rs. 3,84,000/-. Apart from the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards the loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- in general has been granted under the head of conventional compensation for loss to the estate. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 3,84,000/-. Apart from the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000/- to the wife of the deceased towards the loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- in general has been granted under the head of conventional compensation for loss to the estate. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 5,000/- for after death expenses. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held the applicants entitled for total compensation of an amount of Rs. 4,09,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization with proportionate costs. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the original claimants praying for enhancement. 7. Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. G.C. Mazmudar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent-Insurance Company. Learned advocate for the appellants, at the outset, invited our attention to the fact that present appeal has been filed essentially seeking enhancement under the head of loss of future income and loss of consortium vis-a-vis by the parents, wife and the minor children of the deceased and rest of the claimants are joined as respondents in the present appeal. Learned advocate has invited our attention to the determination of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency benefits and has submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in ignoring the vital document in the nature of end service certificate at Exh.33 and salary account details at Exh.86 and at mark 86/1 while determining the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. According to learned advocate, considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case where the deceased was engaged as a pipe fitter in a company based at Kuwait, the Tribunal considering the object of the beneficial legislation, ought to have considered the earning aspect on the basis of such documentary evidence on record without insisting for examination of witness to prove such document. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Tushar Bhanubhai Patel vs. Pranavbhai M. Patel passed by the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No. 1197 of 2010 dated 1.2.2022, this Court in similar circumstances has accepted such documentary evidence to be valid for the basis for awarding just and adequate compensation in the facts of the case. The learned advocate has urged this Court to accept the aforesaid documentary evidence and to re-appreciate the same in order to determine the just and proper compensation under the head of future loss of income. Learned advocate has submitted that taking into consideration the aforesaid documentary evidence, income of Rs. 4,000/- is required to be reconsidered for the purpose of determining the future loss of income. According to the learned advocate, documentary evidence with regard to the conversion rate has been accepted and admitted as evidence at Exh.36 and the conversion rate prevailing at the relevant time was one Kuwait Dinar equivalent to Rs. 180.258. He, therefore, urged this Court to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income as Rs. 2,69,760/- p.a. He further submitted that indisputably the deceased was aged around 34 years at the time of accident and the learned Tribunal has rightly applied a multiplier of 16. However, the Tribunal has refused to award prospective income in absence of any documentary evidence of income being proved by the claimants. According to the learned advocate, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled to 40% of the aforesaid income of the deceased for the purpose of determination of prospective income of the deceased, which comes to Rs. 1,07,904/-. Learned advocate has further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the deduction of 1/3rd towards the aforesaid amount to determine the future loss of income and has urged this Court to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of future loss of income to Rs. 40,28,416/- (Rs. 13,77,664 - 1/3rd = Rs. 2,51,776/- x 16). As against the amount granted under the head of loss of consortium, which was restricted to the wife of the deceased, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ral Alias Chuhur Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and has urged this Court to grant amount of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each for the present applicants-original claimants i.e. Rs. 40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/- as against Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Ltd vs. Nanu Ral Alias Chuhur Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and has urged this Court to grant amount of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each for the present applicants-original claimants i.e. Rs. 40,000/- x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000/- as against Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Learned advocate has further urged this Court to reconsider the amount under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses for Rs. 30,000/- and has accordingly prayed for enhanced amount of Rs. 42,78,416/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of the order which may be passed in this appeal till its realization. 8. On the other hand, the aforesaid submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants were objected by the learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar for the respondent no. 3-Insurance Company. The attention of this Court was invited to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal noticing the pleadings and the material brought on record by the claimants had rightly arrived at a just and proper compensation which calls for no interference. Learned advocate had further submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to proof of income the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the notional income of the deceased to determine the compensation under the head of loss of dependency and has rightly not extended the additional compensation towards prospective income. 9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The issue that arises for consideration of this Court in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is as to whether the appellants-original claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation under the various heads as awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Before examining the merits of the case, apt would be to revisit the settled legal position as held in the landmark decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has laid down the principles governing the approach of the Courts to determine the quantum of compensation in case of death in a motor vehicle accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has laid down the principles governing the approach of the Courts to determine the quantum of compensation in case of death in a motor vehicle accident. On various occasions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the meaning attributed to the word “just and proper” compensation, which according to the Court is required to be fair and equitable. The Courts are conferred discretionary powers guided by aforesaid principles where the Courts, in light of the facts and circumstance of each case, is required to determine the same with the sole purpose to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong committed by the wrongdoer. By the aforesaid guidelines, the Court intended to have a uniform and consistent approach to be taken by the different Courts while determining the compensation in cases of death under different identified heads. 11. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been approved by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again re-visited the concept of “just and proper compensation” as provided under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized upon the Courts to determine such amount on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equatibility on the acceptable legal standard without falling in the trap of arithmetical formulas. The Court has opined that the aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to the arithmetic precision on the basis of material which may be brought on record in each of the individual cases. 12. In light of the aforesaid legal position, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we have been called upon to re-appreciate the evidence brought on record for the purpose of re-determination of the amount of compensation under the various heads as determined by the Tribunal. The undisputed fact which has emerged on record is that the deceased has met with a fatal accident which had occurred on 14.06.1997. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 34 years. The undisputed fact which has emerged on record is that the deceased has met with a fatal accident which had occurred on 14.06.1997. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 34 years. It is the case of the original claimants that at the time of accident the deceased had traveled a long way from Kuwait to visit his native village Khari for attending a marriage function in the family. It has transpired on record as reflected from Exh.33 which is the certificate of end of service produced by the original claimants that there was termination of work engagement with the company based at Kuwait three days prior to the date of accident. On close examination of the aforesaid document, the certified copy of which has been placed on record by the learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants for perusal, the same clearly indicates that the deceased was engaged as pipe fitter by the aforesaid National Company for Mechanical and Electrical Works Limited and was paid an amount of Kuwait Dinar 6.250 per day, which goes to suggest that the nature of work of engagement of the deceased with the aforesaid company was not permanent. The Tribunal has refused to accept such evidence though admitted, in absence of examination of any witness i.e. author of such certificate by the original claimants and has proceeded to determine the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- i.e. notional income prevailing at the relevant point of time in India. In our opinion, the Tribunal committed serious error by recording that no evidence of proof of income was led by the original claimants. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that in compensation cases arising under the Motor Vehicles Act rigorous proof are not required as in a criminal trial or in a civil suit. However, in order to determine the just and proper compensation, the obligation is put on the Courts to award adequate compensation which is fair and equitable in order to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrongdoer but at the same time may not be intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. Thus, the Courts are expected to view through a prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. 13. Thus, the Courts are expected to view through a prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 while examining the question of just and proper compensation noticed that the Ext.A6, which was a certificate issued by the employer of the deceased based at USA reflecting the annual salary of the deceased being attested by the Notary Public and counter signed by the Consulate General of India, New York was accepted as evidence, while examining the loss of compensation towards dependency benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken into consideration Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 and based on the aforesaid annual income, had allowed the appeal preferred by the claimant thereby, modifying the judgment and award of the High Court, while answering the issue of proper date for fixing rate of exchange for conversion of the foreign currency amount in the currency of the country for the purpose of determination of the amount payable to a claimant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed its earlier judgment in the case of Forasol vs. ONGC, 1984 Supp. SCC 263 as well as in the case of Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs. General Electric Co. 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 644 thereby holding that foreign exchange rate as prevailing on the date of filing of claim petition would be applicable for the purpose of determination of an award. 14. We are conscious of the fact that upon the untimely death of the head of the family, heirs of the deceased are brought in a situation of uncertainty. However, at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the nature of work of the deceased was not permanent and in case of daily rated employees there are chances of termination at the whims and fancy of the sponsors. In the peculiar facts of the case, the document in the nature of end of service brought on record by the original claimants at Exh.33 cannot be ignored which goes to indicate that the deceased was earning an amount during the time of accident which was beyond the notional income as taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In the peculiar facts of the case, the document in the nature of end of service brought on record by the original claimants at Exh.33 cannot be ignored which goes to indicate that the deceased was earning an amount during the time of accident which was beyond the notional income as taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The close examination of the aforesaid documents suggest that the same has been compared with the original document and approved as a correct copy by the Indian Embassy at Kuwait. Thus, the same has been exhibited and admitted as evidence. Learned advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company has been unable to dispute the aforesaid fact. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, we find that the monthly earning capacity of the deceased as on the date of accident can be reasonably fixed at 6.250 KD per day x 365 days = 2281.25 KD p.a. On the aforesaid amount by applying conversion rate viz. Rs. 118.251 per KD as established on record at Exh.36, the amount of income in case of the deceased would come to Rs. 2,69,760/- p.a. 16. Having held so and bearing in mind the basic principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) to determine just and proper compensation, on the foundation of the evidence brought on record with regard to age and income of the deceased, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed serious error in not extending the benefit of prospective income of the deceased. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while determining the income an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. It further held that the addition of 30% should be made, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years, whereas in case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. The actual salary to be read was the actual salary less tax. It further held that the addition of 30% should be made, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years, whereas in case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. The actual salary to be read was the actual salary less tax. The addition of 25% is also attracted when the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% when deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years as regards method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 17. In the instant case, at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 34 years and having accepted his annual income of Rs. 2,69,760/- we are of the view that an addition of 40% of the aforesaid salary income of the deceased can be considered towards the future prospects since the deceased was below the age of 40 years as on daily rated work engagement. In such circumstances, the appellants-original claimants are held entitled to prospective income of 40% of the actual income i.e. Rs. 1,07,904/- pa. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has rightly applied a multiplier of 16. Thus, the future loss of income can be determined as Rs. 2,69,760/- + Rs. 1,07,904/- = Rs. 3,77,664/- and applying deduction of 1/3rd would come to Rs. 2,51,776/-. At this stage, it would be appropriate to re-visit the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, AIR 2020 SC 3076 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 9.2 observed and held as under: “9.2. Even though in Sarla Verma (supra) it was held that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th, if the number of dependent family members is four, in the present case, we feel that 50% of the income of the deceased would be required to be deducted, since he was living in a foreign country. The deceased had to maintain an establishment there and incur expenditure for the same in commensurate with the high cost of living in a foreign country. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court rightly deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living expenses.” 18. The deceased had to maintain an establishment there and incur expenditure for the same in commensurate with the high cost of living in a foreign country. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court rightly deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living expenses.” 18. In light of the aforesaid legal position and in peculiar facts of the case, where the family of the deceased consisted of three children and wife and mother who had stayed back in India whereas the deceased was shifted to foreign land, on work permit visa for a limited period and was engaged on daily rated work, we find appropriate to consider deduction of 1/3rd. Indisputably, the family consists of the original claimants and considering the fact that deceased used to contribute to the livelihood of the family, it would be just and proper to apply the deduction of 1/3rd and not 50%. Thus, the compensation under the head of future loss of income is re-determined as Rs. 3,77,664/- minus 1/3rd = Rs. 2,51,776/- x 16 = Rs. 40,28,416/-. 19. In the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is restricted to the wife of the deceased. In our opinion, the Tribunal committed serious error in not extending filial compensation towards minor children of the deceased. Even otherwise, the amount awarded of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium is on the lower side. A three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra), after considering the various pronouncement, has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of 40,000/-. The compensation under these heads were further held to be increased by 10%. However, since the claimants have restrained their claim to Rs. 40,000/- the spousal consortium is accordingly awarded at Rs. 40,000/- and towards the parental consortium, the appellant nos. 2 and 3 are held entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. As against that, the claimants have urged for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the aforesaid conventional heads. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed as under: “52. 40,000/- each. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. As against that, the claimants have urged for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- under the aforesaid conventional heads. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has observed as under: “52. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” Hence, we are of the opinion that the Claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as urged by the learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 21. The appellants- original claimants have prayed for interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced awarded amount before us from the date of present order till actual realization of the enhanced amount. 30,000/- as urged by the learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 21. The appellants- original claimants have prayed for interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced awarded amount before us from the date of present order till actual realization of the enhanced amount. The aforesaid prayer of the appellants has been vehemently objected by the learned advocate for the respondent- Insurance Company by referring to the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the rate of interest at 6% noticing the fact that accident related to the year 1997. In our opinion, since the accident is of the year 1997 the prevailing rate of Bank Interest of 9% would be appropriate to be awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation. As far as contention of learned advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company with regard to income tax required to be deducted on the enhanced amount is concerned, there is no question of any income tax to be deducted at the awarded amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, considering the aforesaid enhanced amount under the different heads, the total amount of compensation awarded to the original claimants of Rs. 4,09,000/- by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced to Rs. 41,90,416/-. After deduction of aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs. 4,09,000/- the appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 37,69,416/-. The amount of compensation is thus quantified as under: S. No. Head/Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Income (per annum) 2,69,760/- 2. Prospective Income 1,07,904/- (40% of Rs. 2,69,760/-) 3. Deduction towards personal expenses 2,51,776/- (i.e. 1/3 of Rs. 3,77,664/- minus Rs. 1,25,888/-) 4. Multiplier (age 34 years) 16 5. Loss of dependency 40,28,416/- 6. Loss of Estate and Funeral expenses 30,000/- 7. Loss of consortium 1,20,000/- (40,000/- each) 8. Total compensation 41,78,416/- 9. Enhanced compensation 37,69,416/- 22. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The original claimants-appellants are held to be entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs. 37,69,416/- at the rate of 9% interest from the date of receipt of the present order till actual realization of the enhanced amount. Total compensation 41,78,416/- 9. Enhanced compensation 37,69,416/- 22. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The original claimants-appellants are held to be entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs. 37,69,416/- at the rate of 9% interest from the date of receipt of the present order till actual realization of the enhanced amount. In absence of any challenge to the issue of involvement of vehicle and the negligency of the respondent driver/owner of the offending vehicle, the respondents are hereby held liable to pay aforesaid enhanced amount jointly and severally to the appellants- original claimants along with interest within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Tribunal is further directed to release the aforesaid amount with interest which may be deposited with the concerned Court upon due verification of the original claimants as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Union of India and Others rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 534 of 2020 dated 16.3.2021. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.09.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) Himatnagar, Sabarkantha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 956 of 1997 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent.