JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. The present First Appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 10-11-2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3 rd Aux), Bhuj-Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No.411 of 2011. 2. The present Appeal and other cognate appeals arising from one accident with took place on 23.06.2011, wherein the deceased and others were traveling in a Bolero Jeep on a highway in Taluka: Abdasa, District: Kutch and at spot of accident and on coming truck collided with the Bolero Jeep, which led to several persons being injured and three persons having died of which one of the deceased being the relative of the claimant had filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhuj, which ultimately came to be disposed of by a common impugned judgment and award. 3. The Insurance Company has filed various appeals being aggrieved by the award on various grounds and the same have been dealt with independently by the Court in different orders. 4. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, the same has been challenged on the ground of quantum as according to the Insurance Company, the compensation awarded is exorbitantly high. 5. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the claimants were unable to establish the income proof as the salary of the deceased was not established on basis of any cogent evidence and in absence of any proof of income tax being paid a notional income of Rs.3,000/- should have been considered as the monthly income. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant has thereafter argued that the heads under which the compensation is granted by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and therefore submitted that under the various heads of last rites and loss of estate, higher compensation is awarded wherein grant of compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life was unwarranted. 7. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and therefore submitted that under the various heads of last rites and loss of estate, higher compensation is awarded wherein grant of compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life was unwarranted. 7. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent-claimants has submitted that though the compensation granted under the heads of last rites and loss of estate as well as loss of expectation of life, be on the higher side, however, considering the evidence on record with regard to the age and income, then also necessary formula as applicable under the pronouncement of the Apex Court decision, then the prospective income is required to be taken into consideration and therefore, just compensation may be awarded. 8. In rejoinder, learned Advocate for the Insurance Company has submitted that as the claimants have not filed the Appeal against the judgment and award, nor have they filed any cross objection and therefore, the claimants cannot claim recalculation of the compensation by adding a head under which the compensation is sought to be enhanced. 9. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the Court may at the outset refer to various pronouncements of the Apex Court, concept of just compensation as contemplated under Section-168 of the Act, where a benevolent interpretation has been given to the word just compensation to compensate the relatives of the deceased, who have suffered an irreparable loss in terms of financial, social and moral support. 10. As per the impugned judgment and award, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads in a tabular form is as under: Sr. No. Particular Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of future earnings 32,17,500/- 2 Loss of Love and Mental agony 3,75,000/- 3 Last rites 25,000/- 4 Loss of estate 50,000/- 5 Loss of expectation of life 50,000/- Total 37,17,500/- 11. In a judgment of Apex Court in case of Surekha and others v/s. Santosh and others reported in 2020 ACJ 2156, the Apex Court observed that the High Court had declined to grant the enhancement though an enhanced amount of just compensation was arrived at because the appellant side failed to file a cross appeal accepting a settle proposition of law that the Court should not take hyper-technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected persons or claimants. The Apex Court went on to enhance the compensation. 12. Similarly, in case of Kavita Balothiya v/s. Santosh Kumar reported in 2024 (0) ACJ 1639 , the Apex Court has laid down that there is no restriction upon the Court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed. 13. Even in case of Ramla v/s. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2019 (0) AIR (SC) 404 , the Apex Court in Para-6 has enhanced the compensation as just compensation, where the Court felt that the compensation with the claimants are entitled to higher than what has been claimed. 14. The Court is of the view that keeping in mind the aforesaid principles for grant of just compensation and exercise is hereby undertaken to bring the compensation in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 15. The Court has found in this particular Appeal that the compensation has been granted under the head of loss of love and mental agony, expenditure towards last rites and ceremony, loss of estate, which are on the higher side and therefore, the Court may bring the compensation under such head to the amount, which is decided by the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 16. Over and above, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted under the head of loss of expectation of life is also not in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court and therefore, the entire compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the aforesaid head is required to be deducted. 17. The Court therefore finds that the Tribunal has committed an error to that extent and therefore the impugned judgment and award is required to be interfered to that extent. 18. At the same time, the Court finds that considering the age and income of the deceased, the prospective income has not been calculated by the Tribunal while granting compensation. In the opinion of the Court, despite there being no cross appeal or cross objection, this Court is required to undertake the exercise of calculating the compensation by including the prospective income into consideration and to bring the compensation in the bracket of being a just compensation and in conformity with formula given under the decision of the Apex Court. 19. 19. The Court has also taken into consideration the evidence led by the claimants to claim compensation, particularly the evidence led for the purpose of deciding the income of the deceased, wherein reliance is placed on the evidence vide Exh-58 and Exh-59 which are the deposition of representative Manager of the employer and the salary slip produced in this regard. According to the Court, the Tribunal has proceeded to correctly appreciate the evidence of this witness to conclude the monthly income of the deceased, therefore, the arguments on behalf of the Insurance Company that the monthly income is not based on any cogent evidence is here by rejected. 19.1 The assessment of monthly income of Rs.27,500/- is accepted with ¼ th deduction towards personal expense, which comes to Rs.20,625/-. The annual income therefore around is Rs.20,625/- x 12 = Rs.2,47,500/-. Considering the age of the deceased being 50 years and employed the prospective income at 15% is required to be added and therefore, the income assessed is Rs.2,84,625/- applying multiplier of 13, the computation under the head of loss of income to the claimants comes to Rs.37,00,125/-. 20. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation to which the claimants are now held entitled to would be as under: Under the head of Compensation of Rs. Future loss of income 37,00,125/- Loss of consortium spouse, filial and parents 2,42,000/- (40,000 + 20% x 5 legal heirs) Funeral expenses 18,150/- Loss of estate 18,150/- Grand Total Less awarded amount of compensation by Tribunal 39,78,425/- 37,17,500/- Enhanced amount 2,60,925/- 21. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to aforesaid extent. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed: [A]. The present appeal is partly allowed accordingly in above terms. [B]. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.2,60,925/- from the date of claim petition till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. [C]. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon if any, to the claimant, by `Account Payee Cheque’/RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. [D]. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the Courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with the Rules. [E]. [C]. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon if any, to the claimant, by `Account Payee Cheque’/RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. [D]. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the Courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with the Rules. [E]. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. 22. The Court fees to be calculated in accordance with the enhance compensation now granted. The present appeal is partly allowed accordingly in above terms.