Order : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Appellants herein, inter-alia, seek enhancement of the compensation awarded vide the judgment/order dated 11.02.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jodhpur, in MAC Case No.540/2009, whereby a compensation of Rs.9,53,803/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants- claimants against respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 with interest @ 8.5% from the date of submission of claim application i.e. 04.09.2009 till payment. 2. The brief facts as noted by the learned MACT are that on 29.01.2009, Shambhuram and Gaydram were travelling in Jeep No. R.J.19-TA-0249 driven by Bhawani Singh respondent No.4 from Balesar towards Sekhala. Shambhuram was sitting in the rear portion of the jeep and Bhawani Singh was driving it. When they reached near Raju Singh's hotel situated in Sarhad 54 Mile Ketu Jawahar Singh Nagar on the general road going from Balesar towards Dechu at 06.00 P.M., a truck number R.J.07-G-5158, driven by its driver, Respondent no.1 Idrish, came from behind at a high speed and carelessly. By it’s rash and negligent driving, respondent no.1 Idrish hit the truck against the jeep of Bhawani Singh from behind and caused the accident. As a result, Shambhuram suffered numerous injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment in the hospital. FIR no.11 was registered in Police Station Balesar on 30.01.2009. During police investigation, the driver of the vehicle no. R.J. 07-G-5158 Idrish, respondent no.1 was held responsible for this accident and a charge sheet was presented for prosecution under sections 279, 337, 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. 2.1 The deceased was 28 years old at the time of death. He was a skilled stone mason and plasterer, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimants were dependent on his income. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.47,72,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. 3. Respondent No.3, the insurer of the truck denied most of the facts mentioned in the claim petition for lack of knowledge but accepted that the truck in question had been insured with it for the period from 30.11.2008 to 29.11.2009. However, the insured did not inform them about the alleged accident. If their liability is accepted, their contribution will be limited to the contributory extent. 4. The driver and owner of the jeep number R.J. 19-TA-0249 involved in the accident, respondent No.4 and 5, did not submit any reply. 5. However, the insured did not inform them about the alleged accident. If their liability is accepted, their contribution will be limited to the contributory extent. 4. The driver and owner of the jeep number R.J. 19-TA-0249 involved in the accident, respondent No.4 and 5, did not submit any reply. 5. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded gross compensation of Rs.9,53,803/- in favour of the claimants under the various heads and against respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally, as shown below: Awarded by Tribunal Sr. No. Title Amount 1. Loss of dependency 9,18,000/- 2. Deprivation from love and affection of husband 10,000/- 3. Loss of Property 2,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 5,000/- 5. Transportation of Body 1,000/- 6. Incidental Expenses 17,803/- Total 9,53,803/- 6. The claimants being the widow, two minor daughters of Shambhuram deceased and his parents are in appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for claimant appellants contends that the learned Tribunal erred; firstly in assessing the income at Rs.6,000/- per month which should have been assessed at Rs.9,000/-; secondly the learned Tribunal did not allow any increase of income for future prospects; thirdly less than the admissible amount of just and fair compensation has been awarded under various heads and lastly; that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is low. 8. Learned counsel for the insurance company respondent No. 3 contested these submissions and argues that just and fair compensation has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference is called for. 9. Having perused the record and heard both sides, I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to higher amount of compensation than awarded by the learned Tribunal. Reasons thereof are recorded in the succeeding part of the instant order. 10. The driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck have not filed any appeal or cross-objection to challenge the findings on various issues recorded and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 11. The only question falling for determination is whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. 12. Claimants asserted that Shambhuram was about 28 years old at the time of his death in the accident. He was a skilled mason and plasterer earning approximately Rs.300/- per day, i.e., about Rs.9,000/- per month. 11. The only question falling for determination is whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. 12. Claimants asserted that Shambhuram was about 28 years old at the time of his death in the accident. He was a skilled mason and plasterer earning approximately Rs.300/- per day, i.e., about Rs.9,000/- per month. This is supported by the testimony of his widow, AW Nijro, which remained unshaken in cross- examination and stands unrebutted. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in 2009 the prevailing daily wages for a mason or plasterer ranged between Rs.300/- and Rs.400/-. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at only Rs.6,000/-. Considering that on some days he may have earned slightly less and on other days slightly more, and allowing a reasonable margin for off-days, the average monthly income of the deceased could not have been less than Rs.9,000/-. The deceased was not an unskilled or occasional labourer; he was engaged in a specialised trade attracting higher remuneration due to the skill, precision, and physical labour it demands. In the absence of any contrary material, the only logical and evidence-based conclusion is that the deceased earned at least the amount deposed by his widow, if not more. 13. A skilled labourer would ordinarily have additional regular employment opportunities even after accounting for working and occasional non-working days, his average monthly income would reasonably be Rs.9,000/- per month and sometimes even more. 14. Given the nature of his work, the unchallenged evidence on record, and the wage trends prevalent in 2009, it would be unrealistic to assume that the deceased earned only Rs.6,000/- per month. I am therefore of the opinion that the deceased’s notional monthly income could not have been less than Rs.9,000/-. 15. The learned Tribunal did not erroneously allow any increase in income of the deceased for future prospects. He was aged 28 years and was a self-employed person working as mason/plasterer at the time of death. In view of the formula settled by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others , , (2017) 16 SCC 680 an addition of 40% income ought to be made for his future prospects. His notional income would be thus 9,000+3,600 = 12,600/- for computation of compensation. In view of the formula settled by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others , , (2017) 16 SCC 680 an addition of 40% income ought to be made for his future prospects. His notional income would be thus 9,000+3,600 = 12,600/- for computation of compensation. It would be fair and reasonable, if 1/4 th of notional income i.e. 3,150 is kept apart/excluded on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, his monthly contribution for the dependent family members would be 12,600-3,150 = 9,450/-. Age of the deceased at the relevant time being 28 years, the multiplier of 17 was rightly applied by the learned Tribunal. 16. In the light of view taken by 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in United India v. Satinder Kaur , (2021)11 SCC 780 , each of the five claimants would be entitled to compensation for loss of consortium for @ 40,000/-. 17. In Rajwati @ Rajjo and others v. United India Insurance Company , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1699 , the victim of the accident had died in 2013. The Apex Court enhanced the compensation under the heads ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’ from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Following the same, the claimants are held entitled to the compensation of Rs.20,000/-under each of the heads ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’. 18. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, the amount of just and fair compensation admissible to the claimant-applicants is computed as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Shambhuram age 28 years self-employed mason/plasterer monthly income 9,000/- 2. By adding 40% for future prospects, monthly notional income 9,000 + 3,600 = 12,600 12,600/- 3. Deduct 1/4th of Rs. 12,600/- for personal expenses of the deceased 3,150/- 4. Claimants’ loss of monthly dependency income = 12,600- 3,150 = 9,450 9,450/- 5. Claimants’ total loss of dependency income by applying multiplier of 17 = 9,450 x 12 x 17 = 19,27,800 19,27,800/- 6. For loss of consortium for @ 40,000/- each for five claimants 2,00,000/- 7. Loss of estate 20,000/- 8. Funeral expenses 20,000/- 9. Gross total compensation = 19,27,800 +2,00,000+ 20,000 + 20,000 = 21,67,800 21,67,800/- 10. Compensation awarded by Tribunal 9,53,803/- 11. Amount of enhancement over the Tribunal’s award 12,13,997/- 19. The rate of interest @ 8.5% per annum allowed by the learned Tribunal seems just and fair. Loss of estate 20,000/- 8. Funeral expenses 20,000/- 9. Gross total compensation = 19,27,800 +2,00,000+ 20,000 + 20,000 = 21,67,800 21,67,800/- 10. Compensation awarded by Tribunal 9,53,803/- 11. Amount of enhancement over the Tribunal’s award 12,13,997/- 19. The rate of interest @ 8.5% per annum allowed by the learned Tribunal seems just and fair. I find no grounds for it’s increase. 20. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants are entitled to a gross compensation of Rs.21,67,800/- payable jointly and severally by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition before the learned Tribunal till payment. 21. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in partial modification of directions issued by the learned MACT, it is deemed necessary to direct that the amount of compensation be apportioned amongst the claimants as under: Sr. No. Name Relation with deceased Share in compensation 1. Nijro Wife 50% 2. Kiran Daughter 15% 3. Khusiya Daughter 15% 4. Sita Mother 10% 22. Ordered accordingly. 23. Appeal is allowed as above. 24. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.