JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge is by the insurance company to the judgment dated 30.09.2011 decided in group of matters by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Chhotaudepur. The challenge in this matter is to MACP No.149 of 2010. 2. Advocate Mr. V.C. Thomas for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that the deceased and the family members were staying on the footpath, and were doing business of making brooms, and, the incident had occurred in the early morning at about 4:00 a.m. on 17.01.2010, as they all were sleeping on the footpath. Mr. Thomas submitted that the negligence of the deceased was required to be taken into consideration, since the occupation on the road was illegal. 2.1 Mr. Thomas stated that the learned Tribunal has erred in considering the income, and the prospective rise has been erroneously assessed, and, thus submitted that assessment of the income is also on a higher footing. 3. Perused the judgment. The Tribunal has dealt with MACP Nos.149 of 2010 to 153 of 2010 by the common judgment and on appreciation of the evidence, it was found that luxury bus was driven rashly and negligently and had ran over the persons sleeping on the footpath on Mehsana Nagar Circle, Opposite Taskand society on Chhani Jakatnaka in Baroda city. 4. In the present MACP No.149 of 2010, the deceased was aged about 20 years and it was urged that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the business of preparing brooms, and the learned Tribunal taking into consideration the year of accident as 2010, has considered the income of Rs.3,500/- with probable prospective assessment in the rise of income as double the same, and, thus gave 50% rise in income and considered the average as Rs.5,240/- per month. Since the deceased was married, 1/3rd of the amount was deducted as personal expense, and the monthly dependency was considered as Rs.3,500/- per month, which annually came to Rs.42,000/-, and applying multiplier of 15, the Tribunal granted Rs.6,30,000/-. 5. The error, which have been committed by the Tribunal is the application of multiplier, since the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and the correct multiplier, as per Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , would be 18. 5. The error, which have been committed by the Tribunal is the application of multiplier, since the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and the correct multiplier, as per Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , would be 18. Hence, if that multiplier is to be considered, then in accordance to the assessment of monthly income, the total dependency loss would have to assess accordingly. Hence, if the income is considered in accordance to the minimum wages at the time of accident, then it would come to Rs.3,800/-. The consortium loss was required to be granted to all the claimants, who are the widow, minor and grandmother, and further the funeral expenses and loss of estate have to be granted in accordance to the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 6. If the total amount is taken into consideration, then the awarded amount is just and proper and this Court does not find any necessity to intervene in the assessment made by the Tribunal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.