JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4141 OF 2017 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants as heirs of the deceased have challenged the judgment and award dated 25.11.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Gir-Somnath at Veraval in M.A.C.P. No. 164 of 2006. 2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put succinctly as under: On 02.04.2006, the deceased was going towards the temple of Madhavrai seated in a Tractor bearing Registration No. GJ-11E-570. When they reached at the place of accident, one Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-IAT-3982 dashed the Tractor from the rear side causing fatal injuries to the deceased, who died on the spot. A First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the Truck and learned Tribunal while deciding the negligence aspect had perused the panchnama which revealed that the width of the road is 23 Feet. Further, it also revealed that the truck had dashed the tractor from the rear side and hence, the truck driver was negligent and responsible for the accident who was required to drive the vehicle in a controlled speed and by exercising due care and caution and therefore, the learned Tribunal has attributed the accident to the sole negligence of the Driver of the truck. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants Mr. Hemal K. Shah submitted that the assessment of income was required to be made as per the Minimum Wages Schedule, and consortium loss was required to be paid as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 4. While contending this argument, learned Advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the income assessment must depend on cogent documentary evidence and stated that the cross objection has been raised as negligence aspect is not in accordance to the evidence. 5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case. The deceased was 35 years at the time of accident. He was earning from driving work. The evidence was given by the claimants and driving license of the deceased was produced on record. The claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. 5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case. The deceased was 35 years at the time of accident. He was earning from driving work. The evidence was given by the claimants and driving license of the deceased was produced on record. The claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal considering the date of accident as 02.04.2006 and on the basis of the socio-economic condition in the State of Gujarat in the year 2006, had assume the income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, what was required to be adopted by the learned Tribunal was the Minimum Wages Schedule so as to take the assistance for the calculation rather making presumptive assessment. Accordingly, the material which has been supplied to this Court to consider the minimum wages shows that at the time of accident for the skilled labourer, the minimum wages in the State of Gujarat was Rs. 2,400/- per month. 6. The deceased was 35 years at the time of his death. 40% prospective rise in income is required to be considered. Dependents are four in number, hence 1/4 amount is deducted as amount towards the personal expenses. Applying the multiplier of 16, the dependency loss would be considered. The calculation thus, for dependency loss is as under: (i) Rs. 2,400/- + 40% rise = Rs. 960/- Hence Rs. 2,400/- + Rs. 960/- equals to Rs. 3,360/-. (ii) 1/4 deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses, the amount would come to Rs. 2,520/- (Rs. 3,360/- minus Rs. 840/-). 7. Annually, applying the multiplier of 16, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 4,83,840/- (Rs. 2,520/- x 12 x 16). 8. The deceased had died leaving behind a widow and minors/children. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each. Therefore, under the head of consortium loss the amount would come to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 3 claimants). 9. Under the heads of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- each is to be granted considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 10. 1,20,000/- (Rs. 40,000/- x 3 claimants). 9. Under the heads of Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- each is to be granted considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 . 10. Thus, the computation can be made as under: Details Amount Future dependency loss Rs. 4,83,840/- Consortium loss Rs. 1,20,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL Rs. 6,33,840/- 11. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- with rate of interest @ 9% per annum, which the respondents are liable to deposit, with the enhanced amount as Rs. 2,13,840/- (Rs. 6,33,840/- minus Rs. 4,20,000/-). In the result, the present respondent/s are directed to deposit the amount within a period of EIGHT (8) WEEKS from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is further directed that the claimants would be entitled to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the application. 12. On going through the cause title of the Appeal, it appears that the two minor claimants have turned major. Let the amount lying in the share of the appellant No. 1 - the widow be totally given to her while the remaining 30% be paid in equal proportion @ 10% to the three other claimants. From the amount, which is given in the share of claimants No. 2, 3 and 4, 60% be paid in cash, and rest of the 40% be placed in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a period of two years. The FDR shall be handed over to the claimants. Interest accruing on such FDR shall be accumulated. After two years, the total amount be given to the claimants, without any reference to the Court. The disbursement be made to the claimants after carrying the necessary procedures for verification of their identities. 13. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and award dated dated 25.11.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Gir-Somnath at Veraval in M.A.C.P. No. 164 of 2006 stands modified to the above extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith. IN CROSS OBJECTION With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) 1. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith. IN CROSS OBJECTION With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) 1. The Cross Objections have been raised on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a Tractor bearing Registration No. GJ-11E-570. It is required to be noted that only on this ground, the Cross Objection would not sustainable since the learned Tribunal has considered 100% negligence of the Truck Driver, of the appellant-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Hence, this issue raised would have no connection to the ground of dispute. 2. In view of the above, the Cross Objection stands rejected. Resultantly, the Civil Application, pending, if any, also stands disposed of.