JUDGMENT : 1. The present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment dated 01.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, Bhilwara in MAC Case No.75/2013. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned judgment/award dated 01.02.2018 awarded a sum of Rs.9,56,284/- as compensation alongwith interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 03.07.2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants with the submission that on 14.01.2013, Ranglal and Mukesh were going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ 14-BF-9444 from Amer towards Kunda. At about 08:45 PM, when they reached near fire brigade office, Kunda under the jurisdiction of Police Station Amer, their motorcycle was hit from front by the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No.RJ 14-T-1938, owned by respondent no.2. The said vehicle was driven rashly and negligently on wrong side of the road by its driver/respondent No.3. As a result of the said accident, Ranglal died on the spot. An FIR bearing no. 29/2013 qua the said accident was registered at PS Amer, Jaipur and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against respondent no.3 Driver. The offending vehicle, on the date of accident, was insured with respondent No.1 – Insurance Company. 3. The appellants-claimants are father, mother and wife of deceased Ranglal. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.37,92,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4576/- (as per the minimum wages of a semi skilled worker) and considering the age of the deceased to be between 26-30 years, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,56,284/- in favour of the claimants-appellants, the break-up of which is as under : 1. Income per month (after adding future prospects (40%) and deduction towards personal and living expenses (1/3rd) in the monthly income of Rs.4576/-) Rs.4271/- 2. Loss of Annual Income(as per the age of 26-30 years of the deceased, multiplier of 17). 4271 x 12 x17 = Rs.8,71,284/- 3. Under the head of ‘consortium’ 40,000/- to claimant no. 3 and Rs.15,000/- each to claimant no. 1 & 3 Total: Rs.70,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of Annual Income(as per the age of 26-30 years of the deceased, multiplier of 17). 4271 x 12 x17 = Rs.8,71,284/- 3. Under the head of ‘consortium’ 40,000/- to claimant no. 3 and Rs.15,000/- each to claimant no. 1 & 3 Total: Rs.70,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs.15,000/- 5. Total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.9,56,284/- Learned Tribunal also awarded interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 4. Averring the compensation to be meagre, the claimants-appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds : firstly, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,576/- per month on basis of minimum wages of a semi-skilled worker/labourer whereas the deceased was working as a sculptor with ‘Modern Marble Art’ and was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore, the same ought to have been considered by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17 while assessing the age of deceased to be between 26-30 years whereas as per the oral and documentary evidence, the deceased was, at the time of accident, 24 years old and therefore, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied in terms of the ratio as laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr.; 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Thirdly, no amount qua the head of ‘loss of estate’ was awarded and further, a meagre amount under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments : i. Tebha Bai and Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Keshwani and Ors.; (2018) 7 SCC 705 ; ii. Mamta & Ors. vs. N.I.C. Ltd; 2010 (1) ACTC (SC) 13; iii. Kaushnuma Begum and Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.; ( 2001 ) 2 SCC 9. iv. Shri Badruddin & Ors. vs. Shri Ramchandra & Ors.; SB CMA No.397/2002 (decided on 21/03/2018) (Rajasthan High Court) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company submitted that the judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal is totally in consonance with law and no ground for enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is made out. 7. Shri Badruddin & Ors. vs. Shri Ramchandra & Ors.; SB CMA No.397/2002 (decided on 21/03/2018) (Rajasthan High Court) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company submitted that the judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal is totally in consonance with law and no ground for enhancement of the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is made out. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence as led by the parties as well as the complete record of the case. 8. The points for consideration before this Court are : i. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as per the minimum wages of a semi skilled worker and not considering the version of the claimants that the deceased was working as a sculptor and earning a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month? ii. Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 in terms of the guidelines laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra)? iii. Whether the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount under the ‘conventional heads’? 9. Adverting to the first point, the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and hence, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while computing the loss of income. Counsel submitted that the salary certificate issued by the proprietor of the firm with whom the deceased was employed, was very well exhibited on record and there was no reason to disbelieve the same. Merely because the person issuing the salary certificate did not enter the witness box, the veracity of the certificate cannot be doubted. Counsel further submitted that the claimants’ witnesses specifically deposed about the income of the deceased and there was no contrary evidence led by the Insurance Company to the effect and hence, there was no reason for the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the same. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begaum (supra). 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that it was clearly proved on record that the salary certificate was a forged document and the said fact was even proved by the specific contrary evidence led by the Insurance Company. 11. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that it was clearly proved on record that the salary certificate was a forged document and the said fact was even proved by the specific contrary evidence led by the Insurance Company. 11. I have thoroughly scanned the record of the learned Tribunal. So far as the evidence led by the Insurance Company is concerned, the investigation report of the Investigator by whom the investigation was got conducted by the Insurance Company has been exhibited as Annexure-A/2. The investigation report exhibited by the Insurance Company did form a part of record and is a piece of evidence qua which there exists no valid reason to discard or disbelieve. The Investigator, in his report, clearly mentioned that Prakash Chandra, the proprietor of the alleged employer firm, refused to supply any document or information pertaining to the employment of the deceased to the Investigator. 12. So far as the burden to prove the fact that salary certificate was a forged one is concerned, the respondent Insurance Company, to discharge its burden, did move an application before the learned Tribunal with a prayer to summon Prakash Sharma, the alleged employer in the witness box along with the record comprising of attendance register, PF register and documents pertaining to payment of salary. The said application was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 19.07.2016 however, as observed in the order sheet dated 22.11.2017, witness Prakash Chandra Sharma refused to accept the summon/communication and did not enter the witness box. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the Insurance Company, by getting an investigation conducted, placing the investigating report on record, leading evidence to get the said report exhibited and proved, and further, taking appropriate steps to get the witness summoned, definitely discharged its burden to prove that the salary certificates (Exhibit 136 & 140) were not genuine. Therefore, it cannot be held that the documents Exhibit 136 and 140 (salary certificate) were proved on record by the claimants beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the fact of the deceased Ranglal, working at Jaipur also becomes doubtful in view of the specific admission of AW-3, Durgalal. Therefore, it cannot be held that the documents Exhibit 136 and 140 (salary certificate) were proved on record by the claimants beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the fact of the deceased Ranglal, working at Jaipur also becomes doubtful in view of the specific admission of AW-3, Durgalal. As per the version of the claimants, Ranglal & Mukesh both were employed with ‘Modern Marble Art’ at Jaipur whereas Durgalal (AW-3), borther of Mukesh, specifically admitted as under : ^^;g lgh gS fd eqds'k xkao esa gh jgrk Fkk rFkk eSa t;iqj jgrk gwaA** In the overall facts and circumstances, the version of the claimants of the deceased working at Jaipur and earning a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month cannot be believed. 14. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, there is no dispute on the ratio that any salary certificate or pay slip cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that the person issuing the said document was not examined before the learned Tribunal, but then, in the present matter, it is clear on record that it was the specific plea of the Insurance Company that the salary certificate as placed on record was not a genuine one and the same was not proved. Further, the evidence to prove so was also led by the Insurance Company. Furthermore, even the person allegedly issuing the said certificate, was summoned by the Court but he chose not to appear. Therefore, the alleged salary certificates, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of the income of the deceased, the same being not proved on record. For the same reasons, the ratio in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (supra) would also not apply in the present matter as therein, no contra evidence had been adduced to controvert the version of the claimants. Herein, there is ample material available on record to hold that the version of the claimants cannot be termed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In view of the above analysis, the income of the deceased cannot be assessed at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants. However, although the salary of the deceased is not found to be proved on record but the factum of his being an artisan (sculpture) is very well proved on record. 15. In view of the above analysis, the income of the deceased cannot be assessed at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants. However, although the salary of the deceased is not found to be proved on record but the factum of his being an artisan (sculpture) is very well proved on record. Keeping the same in view, an artisan being falling in the category of a skilled labour, the minimum wages of a skilled labour as provided by the State Government at that relevant point of time being Rs.4,836/- per month, is taken into consideration for the purposes of computing the loss of income. The finding of the learned Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,576/-per month on basis of the wages of a semi skilled labour deserves to be modified to that extent and Rs.4,836/- per month is taken into consideration for the purposes of loss of income. 16. So far as the second point regarding the multiplier is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the only document available on record to prove the age of the deceased was the post mortem report (Exhibit 3) which clearly mentioned the age of the deceased to be 26 years. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, while considering the age of the deceased to be between 26-30 years, has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 in terms of Sarla Verma’s case (supra). 17. Coming on to the amount payable under the conventional heads, though there was no prayer in the claim petition for compensation qua the ‘loss of estate’, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the said head as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgement of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Ors.; (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein it has been observed as under : "The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of our power Under Article 142 and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. In exercise of our power Under Article 142 and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) further interpreted "consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Meaning thereby, the learned Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs.40,000/-under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ only to one of the claimants being the wife of deceased whereas the same ought to have been awarded to the other two claimants also being the parents of the deceased. Further, the amount qua the head of ‘loss of consortium’ deserves to be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years from the date of judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 i.e. 31.10.2017 and therefore, the amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’ deserves to be enhanced to Rs.48,000/-. 19. On the above analysis, the amount under the conventional heads, after enhancement, is modified as under : Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-; Loss of consortium Rs.48,000/- to each dependent; Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-. 20. In view of the above analysis, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment/award dated 01.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, Bhilwara in MAC Case No.75/2013 is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to the following compensation : 1. Income per month (after adding future prospects (40%) and deduction towards personal and living expenses (1/3rd in the monthly income of Rs.4,836/-) Rs.4,513.60p. rounded to Rs.4,514/- 2. Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of 26-30 years of the deceased, multiplier of 17). 4514 x 12 x 17 = Rs.9,20,856/- 3. Under the head of ‘loss of estate’ Rs.15,000/- 4. Under the head of ‘consortium’ Rs.48,000/- each to appellant Nos.1, 2 & 3 Total: Rs.1,44,000/- 5. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs.15,000/- 6. Total amount of compensation Rs.10,94,856/- 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal. Rs.9,56,284/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.10,94,856/- - Rs.9,56,284/- Rs.1,38,572/- 21. The enhanced amount qua the ‘loss of income’ and other heads shall carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Under the head of ‘funeral expenses’ Rs.15,000/- 6. Total amount of compensation Rs.10,94,856/- 7. Amount awarded by Tribunal. Rs.9,56,284/- 8. Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.10,94,856/- - Rs.9,56,284/- Rs.1,38,572/- 21. The enhanced amount qua the ‘loss of income’ and other heads shall carry an interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, the amount awarded vide this order qua the ‘head of consortium’ shall not carry any interest as the same already comprises of a 10% increase for every three years and hence, has been computed to be Rs.48,000/-. 22. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the claimants in terms of the award.