JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge is given to the judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by the MACT (Main), Dahod in MACP no.213 of 2007. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the appellants submitted that the deceased was a skilled labourer and was maintaining the family of nine and submitted that the Tribunal had not considered the income in accordance to the evidence. Advocate Mr. Hakim further stated that the learned Tribunal was required to take assistance of minimum wages schedule to assess the income and further submitted that the prospective rise in income has not been considered properly and that the amount under the head of loss of consortium is required to be granted as per the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and funeral expenses should have been granted of Rs.15,000/- as per the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 3. Learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta is present before this Court. He submitted that he had withdrawn the leave note. However, the system could not technically accept the withdrawal. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the income factum has to be proved by way of evidence on record since there was no documentary evidence to support the claim and stated that the actual income at the time of the death of the accident has been appropriately assessed by the Tribunal and further stated that the Tribunal has erred in considering 50% prospective rise in income, where actually, it ought to have been 40% in accordance to the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and submitted that by deducting one-fifth towards personal expenses, loss of dependency amount is just and appropriate. 4. The case of the claimants as was urged before the Tribunal suggests that on 9.3.2007, the deceased Rameshbhai was returning after attending occasion of Chandla Vidhi which was at his relative’s house. He was in company of his family members in the vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-17 U-5701. It was stated that on curve on the cross roads, suddenly opponent no.1 – driver of the vehicle applied brakes and the vehicle turned turtle. As a result, the persons in the vehicle sustained injuries and the deceased Rameshbhai owing to the injuries succumbed to death. GJ-17 U-5701. It was stated that on curve on the cross roads, suddenly opponent no.1 – driver of the vehicle applied brakes and the vehicle turned turtle. As a result, the persons in the vehicle sustained injuries and the deceased Rameshbhai owing to the injuries succumbed to death. A complaint was lodged with Limkheda Police Station bearing I-CR no.58/2007. The learned Tribunal on assessing the evidence on record has considered the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-17 U-5701. The FIR, Panchnama of the place of occurrence, inquest Panchnama and postmortem note were perused by the Tribunal to answer issue no.1 in affirmative. 5. The deceased at the time of the death was noted to be of 32 years of age as per the inquest Panchnama. The claimants had stated that the deceased was doing carpentry work and also was possessing agricultural land and he was earning income of Rs.6,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal found that no document was produced to support the say of income, nor anything on record to describe his skill. The learned Tribunal has considered his income as Rs.1,728/- per month. This assessment is made on the basis of the minimum wages schedule as declared by the Government for the period between 1.10.2006 to 31.3.2007, where the learned Tribunal has considered it as Rs.57.60 ps. The rate does not appear to be consistent with the material provided about notification of the Government to consider the minimum wages of the skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled person. The minimum wages schedule which has been provided for perusal of the Court shows the amount of Rs.2,500/- for the unskilled person and Rs.2,600/- for the skilled person. Taking the minimum amount of Rs.2,500/- for unskilled person would be appropriate since no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the deceased as a skilled labourer. Further the Tribunal has erred in giving 50% prospective rise which actually is 40% in accordance to the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, on giving rise 40% of Rs.2,500/-, the future income would come to Rs.3,500/-, deducting one-fifth from the same as Rs.700/- for personal expenses, monthly dependency would come to Rs.2,800/-. The multiplier of 16 would be applied to annual income and hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.5,37,600/- (Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 16). 6. Hence, on giving rise 40% of Rs.2,500/-, the future income would come to Rs.3,500/-, deducting one-fifth from the same as Rs.700/- for personal expenses, monthly dependency would come to Rs.2,800/-. The multiplier of 16 would be applied to annual income and hence, the loss of dependency would be Rs.5,37,600/- (Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 16). 6. In accordance to the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an amount of Rs.15,000/- each is to be granted under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 7. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , it has been observed as under:- “8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. (Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 ) Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.” 8. The claimants are widow, six minors and two aged parents. Hence, total dependents are nine and following the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , each individual would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-. Hence, under the head of loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 9) is granted. Thus, the computation would be as under:- Rs.5,37,600/- Loss of dependency Rs. 15,000/- Loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.3,60,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.9,27,600/- Total compensation 9. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.5,08,131/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,19,469/- 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. 10. Out of the said amount, let total amount as per their share be paid to claimants no.1, 8 and 9 on verification of the identity in proportion as declared by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 10. Out of the said amount, let total amount as per their share be paid to claimants no.1, 8 and 9 on verification of the identity in proportion as declared by the Tribunal. It is stated that the minors (claimants no.2 to 7) have now turned major and hence, let 80% of the amount be given to the claimants no.2 to 7 on verification of the identity in proportion as declared by the Tribunal; and rest 20% of the amount be invested in a fixed deposit with any nationalized bank for a period of two years. Interest accruing on such Fixed Deposit shall be accumulated. After two years, total amount be given to the claimants no.2 to 7 without any reference to the court in the proportion as declared by the Tribunal. 11. 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.