JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Heard. 2. Both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment as these arise from the same award. 3. A bus bearing No. HP-37-0394 owned by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short “ the Corporation”) met with an accident on 10.09.2012 at place Malli in District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The ill fated bus went off the road and fell into a gorge. One Sanjay Kumar was an occupant of the bus as a passenger. He suffered multiple injuries in the accident which proved fatal causing death of Shri Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). 4. The appellants in FAO No. 552 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “claimants”) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) for compensation on account of death of deceased, which came to be registered as MACP No. 65-P/II/2013/12 on the files of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra, at Dharamshala camp at Baijnath (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). 5. The claimants claimed that the deceased was a driver holding licence to drive heavy transport vehicle. He was stated to be working as professional driver earning Rs.15,000/- per month from such avocation. The claimants included four minor children of the deceased besides his wife and parents. They claimed complete dependency on the income of the deceased. The age of the deceased was stated to be 36 years. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. 6. The corporation contested the petition. The rash and negligent driver on the part of the driver of the bus was denied. It was submitted that the claimants had been paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by the State Government and for such reason they had no surviving cause to claim further compensation. 7. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:- “1) Whether death of Sanjay Kumar in accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus No. HP-37-0394, as alleged?OPP 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as alleged?OPP 3) Relief.” 8. Issue No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and the claimants were held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.13,32,500/-. Issue No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and the claimants were held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.13,32,500/-. Learned Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as already received by the claimants from the State Government and thereafter calculated the payable compensation to the claimants at Rs.11,82,500/-. In addition, the claimants were held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of petition till actual realization. The apportionment was also made as under: “Petitioners No.1 to 4: Rs. 1,00,000/- Petitioner No.5: Rs.6,82,500/- Petitioner No.6: Rs.1,00,000/-” Noticeably one of the claimant i.e. father of the deceased had died during the pendency of the petition. 9. The corporation has assailed the award by filing FAO No. 298 of 2018 by contending that the learned Tribunal has not made the calculation in accordance with the settled proposition of law. Learned counsel for the corporation has pointed out that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the claimants as loss of consortium, which according to him should have been 40,000/- that too in respect of the wife of the deceased. He has also submitted that even under the heads “loss of estate” and “funeral charges”, learned Tribunal has awarded excess amount. 10. The claimants have also assailed the impugned award by way of FAO No.552 of 2019. They have raised the contention that the deceased was proved to be a professional driver. The assessment of Rs.4500/- per month as income of the deceased by the learned Tribunal was result of surmises and conjecture, whereas even as per the rates fixed by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2012, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker were Rs.188.98 per day. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the claimants has placed on record a copy of the relevant notification. The award has further been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not awarded anything towards loss of future prospects. A challenge has also been laid to the deduction of amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the assessed compensation. 11. Having considered the rival submissions as also having gone through the records of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned award needs interference for the reasons detailed hereinafter. 12. A challenge has also been laid to the deduction of amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the assessed compensation. 11. Having considered the rival submissions as also having gone through the records of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned award needs interference for the reasons detailed hereinafter. 12. The impugned award reveals that while assessing income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month, learned Tribunal had not taken into consideration any documentary evidence. The document today placed on record by the learned counsel for the claimants clearly reveal that in the year 2012, the State Government had fixed monthly wages of a skilled worker at Rs.188.98. The notification was issued on 01.09.2012. Since, the accident had also taken place in September, 2012, the rates prescribed under the aforesaid notification can easily be taken to be a guiding factor. The corporation has not been able to dispute that the deceased was working as a driver. That being so, the monthly income of the deceased could not be less than the minimum wages prescribed for skilled workers in the year 2012. In this view of the matter, I consider it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. 13. Further, there is substance in the contention of the claimants that the claimants were entitled to compensation on account of loss of future prospects. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it has been held that where the deceased was an self employed person or was not on the permanent rolls, in his case, an addition of 40% on the monthly income has to be made. By application of the said principle, the addition of 40% on the monthly income of Rs.6000/- of the deceased is liable to be made which makes it as Rs.8400/- per month. 14. The deceased admittedly had seven dependents when cause of action had arisen and as per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), in such situation 1/5th of the income of the deceased is liable to deducted on account of his personal expenses. On such deduction, the monthly dependency would be at Rs.6720/-. 15. Learned Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 15 and thus, the total loss of dependency will Rs. 12,09,600/-(Rs.6720x12x15). No deduction of the amount paid to the claimants as ex-gratia can be made. On such deduction, the monthly dependency would be at Rs.6720/-. 15. Learned Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 15 and thus, the total loss of dependency will Rs. 12,09,600/-(Rs.6720x12x15). No deduction of the amount paid to the claimants as ex-gratia can be made. The corporation cannot derive any benefit of the payment made to the claimants by other agency. 16. The contention raised by the corporation that the compensation under the head of loss of consortium has not been rightly calculated by the learned Tribunal, needs to be upheld. In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and later judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 , it has been held that the loss of consortium shall be calculated @ Rs.40,000/- for each of the dependent. In this case, since there are six surviving dependents, the compensation under this head shall be Rs.2,40,000/-. 17. In light of the aforesaid judgment, the compensation under the heads “loss of estate” and “funeral charges” has also to be restricted at Rs.15,000/- each. As per Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads “loss of consortium”, “loss of estate” and “funeral charges” enhancement of 10% after every three years is liable to be made. The enhancement will be applicable from the year 2017, when the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was pronounced. The claimants shall be entitled to two enhancements and the enhanced amount calculated under such heads will be Rs.54,000/-. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation as under:- 1. Loss of dependency Rs.6720 x 15 x 12 = 12, 09,600/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 2,40,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4 Funeral Charges Rs.15,000/- 5. Enchancement @10% after every three years on the compensation granted under the conventional heads. Rs.54,000/- Total Rs.15,33,600/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakh, thirty three thousand and six hundred only) 18. In Additional, the claimants are also entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till actual realization as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 19. The apportionment of the compensation between the claimants shall be as under:- “Claimants No.1 to 4: (daughters & sons of deceased): Rs.2,00,000/- each. Claimant No. 5 (wife of deceased): Rs.6,34,600/-. Claimant No.6 (mother of deceased): Rs.1,00,000/-.” 20. 19. The apportionment of the compensation between the claimants shall be as under:- “Claimants No.1 to 4: (daughters & sons of deceased): Rs.2,00,000/- each. Claimant No. 5 (wife of deceased): Rs.6,34,600/-. Claimant No.6 (mother of deceased): Rs.1,00,000/-.” 20. In view of above discussion, the appeals are accordingly disposed of and the impugned award dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACP No. 65-P/II/2013/12 is modified to the above extent. It is clarified that the amount, if any, released in favour of the claimants shall be inclusive of the amount awarded hereinabove. 21. Records be sent back forthwith.