JUDGMENT : 1. Both the appeals arise from the common accident which challenge the judgment in MACP no.571/90 and 799/90. The judgment was declared on 23.3.2003. 2. MACP no.571/90 was filed by the legal heir and representative on the death of Amrutlal, while MACP no.799/90 was filed by the injured claimant Govindbhai Kacharabhai Patel who had filed the petition through his wife – Krishnaben Govindbhai. 3. Facts of the case as has been narrated in the impugned judgment state that on 21.1.1990, deceased Bharatkumar was driving jeep bearing registration no. GAQ – 5961 and along with him deceased Amrutlal and injured Govindbhai Kacharabhai, injured Kalidas Vithaldas Patel and others were going towards Pundhara from Lodra. At a distance of about 1 km. from Lodra, they met with an accident, since the luxury bus bearing registration no. GRX-6840 came in a full speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep which caused death of Bharatkumar and Amrutlal and injuries to Govindbhai and Kalidas. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vivek Hirpara for learned advocate Mr. Y.N. Ravani for the appellant submitted that the assessment of the compensation is not in accordance to the direction of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and further the consortium loss 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 , while in the injury case, it is submitted that the prospective rise in income is also required to be assessed. 5. Mr. Mazmudar for the insurance company submitted that the income has been considered in accordance to the evidence on record and the multiplier has been rightly applied and further submitted that in the injury case, the claimant is required to prove his prospects to earn higher amount in future which has not been done so in the present matter. 6. The claimants in MACP no.571/90 (First Appeal no.1670/04) are widow and children who were minor at the time of institution of the claim petition. The deposition of the claimant no.1 was recorded at Exh.45 and she had relied upon the medical certificate Exh.46 to prove that the deceased had suffered multiple abrasion over the forehead. He was referred to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 21.1.1990. The deposition of the claimant no.1 was recorded at Exh.45 and she had relied upon the medical certificate Exh.46 to prove that the deceased had suffered multiple abrasion over the forehead. He was referred to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 21.1.1990. The deceased remained in hospital from 22.1.1990 to 2.2.1990. Exh.70 is the death certificate which was produced. The date of birth is of 1.6.1948 of the deceased which was proved by way of birth certificate Exh.50 and hence, accordingly, at the time of his accident, he was aged about 41 years and 6 months. 7. The claimant stated that at the time of the accident, he was serving in the firm of Shambhubhai Madanlal and was earning about Rs.900/- per month and was also earning from the agriculture work. The claimant stated that the said earning was of Rs.15,000/- and has also deposed about the income of Rs.13,598.03 from milk selling business. The Tribunal had observed that such amount cannot be considered as sole income of the deceased as the agriculture work and the earnings from the sale of milk would be by the contribution of every member of the family. The Tribunal thus considered the income of Rs.1,200/- per month for assessing the dependency which this Court considers that it is just and appropriate in accordance to the evidence on record. The deceased died at the age of 41 years. Thus, considering the age and in accordance to the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , prospective rise in income would be 25%. With 25% rise in income which adds Rs.300/-, the total monthly income would be Rs.1,500/-. Considering the dependency of five, one-fourth is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.375/- and the monthly dependency is Rs.1,125/-. Annually applying multiplier of 14, dependency loss comes to Rs.1,89,000/- (Rs.1,125/- x 12 x 14). 8. The deceased died leaving behind him widow and four minor children. Hence, in accordance to the judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the claimants would be entitled to amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards the compensation under the head of consortium loss. The deceased died leaving behind him widow and four minor children. Hence, in accordance to the judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the claimants would be entitled to amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards the compensation under the head of consortium loss. Hence, under the said head, consortium loss of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted. 9. Following the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses are granted. Thus, the computation is as under:- Loss of dependency Rs.1,89,000/- Consortium loss Rs.2,00,000/- Loss to estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.4,19,000/- 10. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.2,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,81,000/- 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. 11. First Appeal no.1671/04 is of the injured claimant challenging the judgment in MACP no.799/90. The claim petition has been filed through the wife Krishnaben Govindbhai since mental capacity of the injured was stated to be weak. In the testimony, she produced medical certificate issued by Community Health Center, Vijapur vide Exh.115. As per the record, the claimant was sub-conscious as he was referred to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad for further treatment. Exh.116 is the medical certificate issued by Dr. Chandrark Pandya, Neuro Surgical Hospital, Ahmedabad. Exhs.117 and 118 are the medical certificates issued by V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad. The applicant took treatment from 25.1.1990 to 4.2.1990 as an indoor patient and thereafter, on 27.1.1990, the applicant had undergone an operation for the head injury. The disability certificate vide Exh.149 was issued by Dr. Mahesh Babubhai Trivedi, Consultant Neurosurgeon assessing 30% permanent partial disability of the left frontal region and the effect on the urinary bladder. The applicant has examined Dr. Mahesh Babubhai Trivedi at Exh.147 as witness. The report issued by Ahmedabad Neurological Research Center vide Exh.122 was produced to support the contention, where it was opined that the CT Scan findings show left frontal hemorrhagic contusion. Left frontal comminuted fracture with small intracranial fragment and associated scalp haematoma. 12. The applicant has examined Dr. Mahesh Babubhai Trivedi at Exh.147 as witness. The report issued by Ahmedabad Neurological Research Center vide Exh.122 was produced to support the contention, where it was opined that the CT Scan findings show left frontal hemorrhagic contusion. Left frontal comminuted fracture with small intracranial fragment and associated scalp haematoma. 12. The income of the claimant was stated to be Rs.2,000/- per month from agriculture work and cattle breeding and sale of milk. The Tribunal has considered that such income would be generated by all the members of the family and hence, assessed income of Rs.900/- per month. Taking the base of the year 1990 and relying upon the agriculture documents of extracts of village form no.7/12 and 8A produced on record at Exhs.123 and 124, this Court considers that the amount so assessed as monthly income is reasonable and appropriate. The claimant could prove his birth date by birth certificate at Exh.125 which shows the date of birth as 1.10.1950. He was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. Thus, according to the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), prospective rise in income would be 25%. The disability of 30% is required to be believed as functional disability as accident has affected the brain and the head which suffered fracture as noted hereinabove. Hence, relying upon the judgment in the case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2023 SC 186 , prospective rise in income has to be considered to assess the future loss of income. Hence, accordingly, the income would be Rs.900/- + 25% rise = Rs.225/-. Hence, monthly income would come to Rs.1,125/-. 30% functional disability annually applying the multiplier of 15, future loss would come to Rs.60,750/- (Rs.1,125/- x 12 x 15). 13. Taking into consideration the medical condition of the claimant and the fact that he was hospitalized, he would not have been in a position to recover for about two months. Hence, under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.1,800/- is required to be granted. The medical bills of Rs.2,706.13 could be proved on record and the learned Tribunal has considered the same in the observation. However, the said amount has not been added. Hence, under the head of medical bills, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is granted. Hence, under the head of actual loss of income, Rs.1,800/- is required to be granted. The medical bills of Rs.2,706.13 could be proved on record and the learned Tribunal has considered the same in the observation. However, the said amount has not been added. Hence, under the head of medical bills, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is granted. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.7,000/- under the head of special diet, attendant and transportation which this Court considers to be just and proper. However, the amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life is on very lower side. The claimant at the time of the accident was aged almost about 41 years. The disfigurement of the face as well as the effect of the accident on his mental condition would be effecting his future life and that would have caused larger pain and suffering. Hence, under the said head, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted. In the result, the computation is as under:- Future loss of income Rs.60,750/- Actual loss of income Rs.1,800/- Medical bills Rs.3,000/- Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs.7,000/- Pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/- Total compensation Rs.1,22,550/- 14. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.55,880/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.66,670/- 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. 15. The Tribunal after having appreciated the evidence on record and in view of deposition had concluded 70% negligence of the luxury bus driver and 30% negligence of the jeep driver. The insurance company of the bus is United India Insurance Company Ltd., while the insurance company of the jeep is New India Assurance Company Limited. Thus, the enhanced amount be deposited in the said proportion as laid down by the Tribunal. 16. After deposit of the said amount, let total amount be paid to the claimants of both the claim petitions on verification of the identity in the ratio of 70:30 as declared by the Tribunal. 17. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. 16. After deposit of the said amount, let total amount be paid to the claimants of both the claim petitions on verification of the identity in the ratio of 70:30 as declared by the Tribunal. 17. 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.