JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. The instant appeals have arisen out of the judgment and award dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, District Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.143/2017, whereby the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants, has awarded a sum of Rs.9,62,296/- along with interest @7 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition as compensation in favour of the claimants. 2. CMA No.369/2020 has been filed by the appellants-claimants (for short’ the claimants’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas CMA No.5343/2019 has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the RSRTC’) challenging the judgment & award passed by the Tribunal on the various grounds. 3. CMA No.369/2020-Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,902/- per month whereas the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by denting and repairing the vehicles in Shanti Motors. So, the income of the deceased be calculated as Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased for 26 days only, whereas it should be calculated for 30 days. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted half amount towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas it should be 1/4th of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/- per person towards loss of filial consortium and love and affection whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per claimant. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the RSRTC in CMA No.5343/2019 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that the accident was occurred due to negligency of the driver of motor cycle. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of 7 days and RSRTC was wrongly impleaded to get the compensation. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that non-claimant- Lala Ram categorically stated and denied the factum of the accident. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may be quashed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the RSRTC further submits that non-claimant- Lala Ram categorically stated and denied the factum of the accident. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may be quashed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Tribunal observed that from Naksha Moka (Ex.11), it was amply clear that the offending RSRTC bus while being driven from Chomu to Samod, was taken in the opposite direction (Samod to Chomu side) which hit the motorcycle and accident took place. Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that the alleged accident took place due to carelessness and negligence of non-claimant No.1. The Tribunal also observed that in the Rojnamcha report, RSRTC bus No. RJ 18 PA 4660 and motorcycle No. RJ 41 SB 5712 were mentioned, and due to their collision, Nemichand sustained grievous injuries and died. The police after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against non-claimant No.1- Lala Ram in the competent court. Thus, negligency of the driver of the RSRTC bus was duly proved. 7. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the claimants submitted that they were busy in the rituals of their son who died in the said accident, therefore, some delay was caused in lodging the FIR. Thus, the cause given by the claimants in lodging the FIR with some delay was found to be justified. 8. It is an admitted position that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/-per month. So, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at that time for skilled labour i.e. Rs.227/- per day considering him a skilled labour but the Tribunal awarded the compensation for 26 days whereas it should be for 30 days. The Tribunal has granted very meager amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- per person towards loss of filial consortium and love and affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per person. The Tribunal has granted very meager amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- per person towards loss of filial consortium and love and affection, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- per person. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent as under:- Monthly income 227 X 30 = Rs.6,810/- Annual Income 6,810 X 12= Rs.81,720/- Since the deceased was unmarried boy 1/2 is to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased 81,720 – 40,860 =40,860/- According to the age of the deceased i.e. 22 years, Multiplier of 18 to be applied 40,860 X 18= Rs.7,35,480/- Add 40% towards future prospects 7,35,480+2,94,192= Rs.10,29,672/- Loss of filial consortium to claimant Nos.1 and 2 Rs.80,000/- and Love and Affection to the claimant Nos.3 and 4 Rs.80,000 Rs.1,60,000/- Funeral expenses (+) (As awarded by the Tribunal) 15,000/- Loss of Estate (+) (As awarded by the Tribunal 15,000/- Total Rs.12,19,672/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.9,62,296/- Enhanced Amount of compensation 12,19,672-9,62,296= Rs.2,57,376/- 9. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal No.369/2020 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get a further sum of Rs.2,57,376/-(12,19,672-9,62,296) as compensation. The RSRTC is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs.2,57,376/- with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same. The enhanced amount shall carry @ 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the RSRTC is dismissed, whereas, appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. 11. Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.