JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge is given to the judgment dated 28.2.2005 passed by the MACT (Aux), Mehsana in MACP No.991/93. 2. Mr. A.R. Lakhia, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the prospective rise in income was required to be assessed and the multiplier applicable should be as per the age, where the age has been assessed as 25 by the Tribunal and thus, the multiplier should be 18 as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and further submitted that the consortium loss is required to be granted to both the parents and widow and further stated that the amount for funeral expenses and loss to estate was required to be considered as per the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 3. Facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal is to the effect that on 11.6.1993, the son of claimant no.1 who was working with the Company of opponent no.2 was helping the operation of the crane for the road construction which was going on in Saduthala Village. The opponent no.1 was a driver who had kept the cabin door open and suddenly because of jerk in driving the crane, the deceased fell down from the crane which ran over him, which injured his body and was declared dead by Mehsana Civil Hospital. 4. The income of the deceased was considered as Rs.1,000/-, where it was urged by the claimant that he was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. Since no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said fact, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered Rs.1,000/- as income. However, the Tribunal was required to add the amount under the head of future prospective rise which would be 40% in accordance to the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and hence, accordingly, the income would come to Rs.1,400/-. The claimants are three in number who are parents and widow of the deceased and hence, one-third would be deducted, so the amount would come to Rs.934/- (Rs.1,400/- - Rs.466/-) and annually considering the income with the multiplier of 18, loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,01,744/- (Rs.934/- x 12 x 18). The claimants are three in number who are parents and widow of the deceased and hence, one-third would be deducted, so the amount would come to Rs.934/- (Rs.1,400/- - Rs.466/-) and annually considering the income with the multiplier of 18, loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,01,744/- (Rs.934/- x 12 x 18). The claimants are parents and the widow and hence, each of them would be entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head of consortium loss. Hence, in total, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded. 5. The entitlement for the loss of estate and for funeral expenses would be Rs.15,000/- each in accordance to the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, the total compensation would be as under:- Loss of dependency Rs.2,01,744/- Consortium loss Rs.1,20,000/- Loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs.3,51,744/- 6. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,33,060/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,18,684/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 7. Both parents would be entitled to 40% amount. It is stated that the widow has already left house and hence, 20% amount be paid to her, who is claimant no.3 of MACP and respondent no.4 of the present matter. Further the claimant father has died. Let his share be distributed in equal proportion to the heirs and legal representatives, as noted in the cause title of the present matter. 8. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.