JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The challenge has been given to the judgment and award dated 1.11.1985 passed by MACT (Main), Banaskantha in MACP No. 124/83 under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 2. Facts of the case as could be culled out from the impugned judgment suggest that on 13.11.1982, Gangaram with his wife and other persons had come to their native place from Bombay to enjoy Diwali and thus, after alighting from the train at Palanpur, they were going in jeep bearing registration no. GRO 352 towards Deesa. When they reached near Chadotar, one truck bearing registration no. GTA 3772 driven by opponent no. 1 came from the opposite direction in full speed and in rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn and dashed the jeep. As a result, Gangaram, Dudhiben and Ravtaji were thrown down on the road and sustained injuries and they died on the spot. The other persons traveling also suffered injuries and a group of 11 matters were decided by the Tribunal. 3. In MACP No. 124/83 which is impugned herein was filed on account of death of Ravtaji who was aged about 25 years and was in diamond polishing work at Bombay. According to the claimant, he was sending money every month for the benefit of the family and owned 1½ vigha of land and was growing potato and wheat in the land with the assistance of money sent by the husband and they are earning income of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per year from agriculture source. As per the facts on record, the deceased was in diamond polishing work at Bombay in the factory of Gangaram. The Tribunal did not believe the fact of the deceased working as a diamond polisher and sending Rs. 500/- per month to the applicant. Govindbhai Motaji was examined as witness whose brother Gangaram was conducting diamond polishing business and it was stated that in his factory, the deceased was working and earning about Rs. 900/- per month. As per the Tribunal, the deceased at the time of the accident was 21 years of age and considered Rs. 200/- as dependency amount. 4. Learned advocate Mr. 900/- per month. As per the Tribunal, the deceased at the time of the accident was 21 years of age and considered Rs. 200/- as dependency amount. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Satta submitted that the accident itself would prove the fact that the deceased was in diamond polishing business along with Gangaram as he was traveling with the family of Gangaram to visit the Village during Diwali vacation. Advocate Mr. Satta submitted that the income factor could not be denied since he was at Bombay to earn for the family. Advocate Mr. Satta further submitted that the Tribunal has believed some evidence in connection with the deposition of Govindbhai to believe that the deceased was working with Gangaram and earning Rs. 900/- per month by diamond polishing work. In view of the said fact, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of messing charges of Rs. 225/- and thereafter, has assessed the dependency and has also deducted the amount of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per month. 4.1 Advocate Mr. Satta submitted that the calculation for the compensation as made by the Tribunal is not just. The deduction for the personal expenses is without any basis and the fact has not been appreciated that the deceased was working at Bombay and hence, standard of earning would be high comparing the Village at Gujarat. Hence, those aspects also required to be considered and stated that the amount under the head of loss of expectation of life and funeral expenses are on lower side. 5. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar submitted that though the witness Govindbhai who is brother of Gangaram was examined, no specific evidence by way of documentary evidence were produced on record to prove the exact income of the deceased and hence, stated that no random assumption should be made for assessment of the income. Mr. 5. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar submitted that though the witness Govindbhai who is brother of Gangaram was examined, no specific evidence by way of documentary evidence were produced on record to prove the exact income of the deceased and hence, stated that no random assumption should be made for assessment of the income. Mr. Mazmudar further vehemently contended that the application was filed in the year 1986 and the claimants could not get it moved to be registered expeditiously as the First Appeal and therefore, appeal has been listed in the year 1997 and further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the matter got dismissed for default and there had been delay of about 1402 days in getting the restoration and thus, stated that no order regarding the interest for those delayed period should be passed so as to overburden the insurance company for payment of interest. 6. Considering the evidence on record as appreciated by the Tribunal and the standard of living at the time of the accident of 13.11.1982 and the fact that the deceased was working at Bombay at the diamond polishing factory, this Court considers that an amount of Rs. 800/- is required to be assessed as his income. The age of the deceased was 21 years. Hence, relying upon the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% prospective rise in given, which comes to Rs. 320/-. Thus, the said amount would come to Rs. 1,120/-. Deducting one-third towards his personal expenses of Rs. 373/- monthly dependency would come to Rs. 747/- (Rs. 1,120/- - Rs. 373/-). Considering annually with multiplier of 18, dependency loss comes to Rs. 1,61,352/- (Rs. 747/- x 12 x 18). Under the head of consortium loss for all the claimants, this Court considers that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- be granted under the head of consortium loss. 7. As per the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for loss to estate and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses is granted. Hence, the computation is as under: Loss of dependency Rs. 1,61,352/- Consortium loss Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 2,31,352/- 8. Argument of Advocate Mr. 15,000/- for loss to estate and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses is granted. Hence, the computation is as under: Loss of dependency Rs. 1,61,352/- Consortium loss Rs. 40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 2,31,352/- 8. Argument of Advocate Mr. Mazmudar to waive payment of interest for the delayed period cannot be given countenance since as per the record from 1986 to 1997, the petition was proceeded for permission to file as an indigent person. Further, the order restoring the First Appeal for the delay of 1042 days was found on the ground that the address of the driver of the vehicle was not traceable and to that cause, delay came to be condoned. The reason for delay has been explained and those delay had been condoned by the earlier bench without any adverse observation. 9. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 42,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,88,452/- with interest at the rate of 6% 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. It is stated that by Advocate Mr. Satta that the claimant no. 1-mother has died, while claimant no. 2-widow is on record and on death of the grand mother, grand son has been joined on record. In view of the same, let total amount be paid to the widow of the deceased by account payee cheque on verification of the identity. 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.