JUDGMENT : PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying enhancement in the award dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in claim case No. 966/2014 titled as Shankar Lal Soni and ors. vs. Prahlad Gurjar and ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,05,000/- in favour of appellants-claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Smt. Kaushlya Devi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.10.2014 deceased Smt. Kaushlya Devi was walking with her husband on Road No.9 VKIA near Carnation Auto, Vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GC-4272 came from backside in fast speed in rash and negligent manner and hit Smt. Kaushlya Devi who sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment died, hence claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. 3. Notices were served to the respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner remained ex parte. Respondent No.3- Insurance Company of the offending vehicle appeared and filed the written statement disputing all the averments made in the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal has framed four issues for consideration. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined AW-1 Shankar Lal Soni and produced documentary evidence Ex.1 to Ex.14. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the respondents. 5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 21.03.2016, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants. 7. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that though deceased was a housewife but from embroidery work she was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month. That fact was not controverted by the Insurance Company by leading any evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal in absence of any counter evidence assessed a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month as income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that though deceased was a housewife but from embroidery work she was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month. That fact was not controverted by the Insurance Company by leading any evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal in absence of any counter evidence assessed a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month as income of the deceased. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not granting future prospects as per the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under conventional heads also, the learned Tribunal has not followed the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the appellants are not entitled for enhancement in compensation since the learned Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects of the matter awarded a just and reasonable compensation. 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 11. The manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed. This appeal has been filed only questioning quantum of compensation, hence there is no need for any discussion on the question of negligence. 12. The age and multiplier as determined by the learned Tribunal is also unquestioned. 13. The learned Tribunal after elaborately discussing the factual aspects awarded a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 25,000/- for spousal consortium, Rs. 50,000/- for parental consortium and Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses and arrived at a total compensation of Rs. 6,05,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. 14. The Tribunal ought to have followed the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in:- (i) (2017) 16 SCC 680 , National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible. 15. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of deceased- Smt. Kaushlya Devi as Rs. Pranay Sethi and Others (ii) (2018) 18 SCC 130 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors. However, without following the guidelines issued in the said judgments, the Tribunal mechanically awarded compensation which is not permissible. 15. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of deceased- Smt. Kaushlya Devi as Rs. 5,000/- per month though the contribution of a housewife in a family is invaluable and cannot be equated with any wages but in absence of alleged proof of income, her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labourer prevailing at the time of the accident, therefore, considering the month of 30 days, monthly income of deceased Smt. Kaushlya Devi @ 209/- per day comes to Rs. 6270/- adding its 25% i.e. Rs.1568/- towards future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), thereby monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.7838/- per month. Since the deceased died leaving three persons, therefore after deduction of 1/3 i.e. 2613/- per month from above assessed income, net income would come to Rs. 5225/- per month and loss of income comes to Rs. 5225x13x12=8,15,100/-. 16. In addition appellants-claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with increase of its 10% in every three years under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and thereby appellants-claimants are entitled for Rs.1,80,000/- towards conventional heads as per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) . Accordingly, the compensation amount is re-assessed as follows:- Sr. No. Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (in Rs.) Award modified by this Court (in Rs.) 1. Loss of income 5,20,000/- 8,15,100/- 2. loss of estate Nil 18,000/- 3. spousal Consortium 25,000/- 48,000/- 4. Parental consortium 50,000/- 96,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses 10,000/ 18,000/- Total Compensation 6,05,000/- 9,95,100/- 17. The appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 9,95,100/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 19. The appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 9,95,100/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent. 19. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the modified /enhanced award of amount before the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire modified/ enhanced award with accrued interest in proportion as determined in the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making appropriate and necessary application before the Tribunal. The appellants-claimants shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal, if any. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount upon production of certified copy of this judgment. 20. The appeal is partly allowed.