ORDER : RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. The claimants/appellants in MAC No.303/2016 have preferred this appeal against the award dated 27.11.2015 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.195/2014, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,38,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization, while fastening liability on Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3. 2. The claimants/appellants in MAC No.304/2016 have preferred this appeal against the award dated 26.11.2015 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No.191/2014, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,85,600/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization, while fastening liability on Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3. 3. As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 13.07.2014, Ajay Bada (deceased in MAC No.303/2016) and Ashish Khakha (deceased in MAC No.304/2016) were returning from village Sukhri in the motorcycle. On the way, the driver – Mohan Bargah (non-applicant No.1) of a truck bearing registration No.MH-34-M-5067 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased persons, as a result of which the deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and Ajay Bada died on the spot and Ashish Khakha died during course of treatment. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 – Santosh Kumar Singh and insured with non-applicant No.3 – Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. As per the claim petitions, deceased Ajay Bada was working as a meter reader and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas deceased Ashish Khakha was a watchman and he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. 4. On claim petitions being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.9,64,000/- (in MAC No.303/2016) and Rs.20,98,144/- (in MAC No.304/2016), the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by the parties, passed an award as mentioned in paragraph 3 & 4 of this judgment respectively. Being aggrieved with the impugned award, the claimants have filed the appeals for enhancement. 5. Being aggrieved with the impugned award, the claimants have filed the appeals for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants (MAC No.303/2016) submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased Ajay Bada at Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas it should be Rs.6,000/- per month looking to the nature of work of the deceased person and even minimum wages was Rs.5,468/- per month at that point of time. She further submits that the deceased Ashish Khaka (MAC No.304/2016) was a watchman working in the irrigation department and as per his salary slip he was earning Rs.12,100/- per months. She further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed against the impugned award, submits that there is no such documentary evidence produced by the claimants regarding income of the deceased Ajay Bada. He further supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act is awarding just and fair compensation to the victim or motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Court/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident to get just compensation and in assessing, what has been described as a just compensation under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. 9. 9. As regards the income of the deceased – Ajay Bada (in MAC No.303/2016) though the claimants in the claim petition have pleaded that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a meter reader, but no documentary evidence in support of thereof has been adduced by the claimants to substantiate the said pleading. However, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, considering the Minimum Wages provisions and the nature of work of the deceased Ajay Bada, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,468/- i.e. Rs.65,616/- per annum. However, there is no dispute on the fact that deceased Ashish Khakha was a salaried person working in irrigation department and the Tribunal after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, has assessed Rs.12,100/- as his monthly income. Moreover, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects of the deceased persons, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years of age. Therefore, in the MAC No.303/2016, looking to the age of the deceased Ajay Bada i.e. 30 years, as considered by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards his future prospects would be 40% and in MAC No.304/2016 looking to the age of the deceased Ashish Khakha i.e. 26 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards his future prospects would be 50%. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- MAC No.303 of 2016: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,468/- per month Rs.65,616/- per annum 02. 40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects i.e. Rs.26,246/- Rs.65,616 + Rs.26,246= Rs.91,862/ 03. 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.45,931/- Rs.91,862 – Rs.45,931 = Rs.45,931/- 04. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.45,931 x 17 = Rs.7,80,827/- 05. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,468/- per month Rs.65,616/- per annum 02. 40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects i.e. Rs.26,246/- Rs.65,616 + Rs.26,246= Rs.91,862/ 03. 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.45,931/- Rs.91,862 – Rs.45,931 = Rs.45,931/- 04. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.45,931 x 17 = Rs.7,80,827/- 05. Towards Conventional Heads (loss of filial consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate) Rs.1,10,000 (Rs.40,000 + 40,000 +15,000 +15,000/-) Total Compensation Rs.8,90,827/- MAC No.304 of 2016: Sl.No Heads Calculation (in Rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.12,100/- per month Rs.1,45,200/- per annum 02 50% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects i.e. Rs.72,600/- Rs.1,45,200 + Rs.72,600= Rs.2,17,800/- 03. 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.72,600/- Rs.2,17,800 – Rs.72,600 = Rs.1,45,200/- 04. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.1,45,200 x 17 = Rs.24,68,400/- 05. Towards Conventional Heads (loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate) Rs.1,50,000/- (40,000+40,000+40,000+15,000 +15,000) Total Compensation Rs.26,18,400/- Total Compensation Rs.26,18,400/- 10. In MAC No.303/2016 the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.4,38,000/-, therefore, after deducting the same from Rs.8,90,827/-as awarded by this Court, the appellants/claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.4,52,827/-. Likewise in MAC No.304/2016 the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.16,85,600/-, after deducting the same from Rs.26,18,400/- as awarded by this Court, the appellants/claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.9,32,800/-, which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the ratio of disbursement and the terms and conditions made by the Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Although the claimants in MAC No.304/2016 had claimed total compensation of Rs.20,98,144/- in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, but after proper assessment and appreciation of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal granted Rs.16,85,600/- without awarding future prospect and consortium. This Court after re-appreciation of the evidence and on the basis of the principles laid down in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), has granted just and fair compensation to the tune of Rs.26,18,400/- which is more than the claimed compensation. As regards, just and fair compensation, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2019) 2 SCC 192 is reproduced hereunder: “5. Ltd. (supra), has granted just and fair compensation to the tune of Rs.26,18,400/- which is more than the claimed compensation. As regards, just and fair compensation, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2019) 2 SCC 192 is reproduced hereunder: “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time -barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. [See the judgments of this Courtin (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523, (b) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , (c) Ibrahim v. Raju. (2011) 10 SCC 634 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1053 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 120]. 6. Accordingly, the following order is made: the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs 28,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, as awarded by the High Court, which shall be paid by the respondent Insurance Company, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the amount of compensation, if any, already paid to the claimants, shall be deducted out of the enhanced compensation.” 12. Yet, in another decision rendered in the matter of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 204, the Supreme Court held as under: “17. Needless to say that the amount of compensation, if any, already paid to the claimants, shall be deducted out of the enhanced compensation.” 12. Yet, in another decision rendered in the matter of Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto alias Nemchand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 204, the Supreme Court held as under: “17. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 , it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award “just” compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” 13. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation” and that the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. 14. In the result, the appeals MAC No.303/2016 and MAC No.304/2016 are allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent.