JUDGMENT : HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Khambhat at Anand, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.326/2020 (Old Case No.615/2017), the appellant-original claimant preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 2. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned Advocate for the appellant-original Claimant and Mr. Tanmay B. Karia, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for other respondents. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 01.10.2017, deceased Prafulben and his wife Ushaben were travelling in car bearing No.MH-47-N-0277 on correct side of the road and when they reached near Kabara village, Vataman Tarapur road, at that time one Truck bearing No.GJ 12 Y 7828 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the car from behind. As a result, the deceased got serious injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the legal heir of the deceased to get compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- from the opponents. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,33,810/- along with cost and interest @ 9 % p.a. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error while attributing 20 % share to respondent No.4 who is grandmother of the deceased, whereas, the present appellant is mother of the deceased. The appellant was having only son and daughter in law, who are died in the accident, whereas, the respondent No.4 grand-mother was having three sons alive and she is residing with them. Further, the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs.6500/- p.m. He has submitted that Tribunal has committed error in making apportionment of 20 % to grandmother – respondent No.4. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not properly awarding future prospective income and other conventional heads are required to be enhanced. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not properly awarding future prospective income and other conventional heads are required to be enhanced. Hence, he has prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted that, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation. Respondent No.4 was grand-mother of the appellant and since claimant No.1 expired, application was filed below Exh:21 and respondent No.4 was joined as party being deceased Praful was grand-son. They were residing with her and she was dependent upon the income of both the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and has not committed any error. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appeal is filed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not challenged. The Insurance Company has not filed any cross- objection. Hence, this appeal is required to be decided on the aspect of quantum only. Alleged incident is not not in dispute. Involvement of the vehicle is also not in dispute. In order to prove the claim, the claimant has filed an Affidavit in form of Examination in Chief at Exh:33, FIR at Exh:39, Panchnama of scene of incident at Exh:40, Inquest Panchanama at Exh:41 and PM report at Exh:46. During pendency of claim petition, claimant No.1 expired and due to this reason, respondent No.4 was joined vide Exh:21 and claimant at the relevant point of time given consent and she was joined as party respondent being grandmother of the deceased and being dependent. Further, the deceased was doing driving and labour work and earning Rs.15,000/-, but has not proved any document qua income on record and therefore, the Tribunal has considered her income at Rs.6,500/- p.m. After appreciating the evidence produced on record, the Tribunal held the offending vehicle sole negligent relying on the decisions of the Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC, AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, 2011 (11) SCC 635 . 7. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. HRTC, AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, 2011 (11) SCC 635 . 7. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC) , that if no proof of income is produced on the record, then Tribunal has to consider prevalent minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2017 and during that time, the deceased was doing business and as per the minimum wages of skilled worker, the minimum income is required to be considered as Rs.8,400/-. Hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.8,400/- per month. As the deceased was 38 years old, 1/3 deduction as personal expenditure and living of the deceased and multiplier of 15 are just and proper as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 121. 8. Therefore, calculating the income of the deceased as Rs.8400/- and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3360/- which comes to Rs.11,760/- and 1/3rd amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,920/- and the net amount comes to Rs.7840/-. In view of above, the amount under the head of loss of future dependency is required to be reassessed as Rs.7840/- x 12 months x 15 multiplier = Rs.14,11,200/- . Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,19,140/- under the head of future loss of dependency. 9. Further, the Tribunal by relying on the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded total Rs.35,000/- under the two conventional heads, however, this Court is of the view that amount is required to be reassessed as Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellant – original claimant is entitled for additional amount of Rs.1300/ - (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.17500/- = Rs.650/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.17,500/- = Rs.650/- towards funeral expenses). 10. Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. 10. Further, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd. 2022 Live Law (SC) 666 , the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding loss of consortium. However, in view of above judgments, the appellants are entitled for loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400/- x 3 claimant). 10.1 So far entitlement of respondent No.4 is concerned, it is needless to say that legal representative has right to file claim petition and Tribunal has properly considered the evidence in light of Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. HDFC Ergo General Ins. Co. Ltd. 2023 ACJ 1853 and Jaysree Vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 921 and has considered that the grandmother is also entitled to file claim petition and claim herself as dependent. From the evidence, it also reveals that both the deceased were residing with respondent No.4 and considering term legal representative and considering the object of enevolent Resolution of Act, interpretation is required and respondent No.4 being grand-mother is entitled to get compensation and even while preferring application below Exh:21 for joining party, consent was given by the claimant. Therefore, argument made by learned counsel for the claimant that respondent No.4 is not entitled for any compensation, is not acceptable. 11. As discussed above, the appellants-original claimants are entitled to get compensation computed as under:- Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Reassessed by this Court Future loss of dependency 10,92,060/- 14,11,200/- Loss of Estate 17500/- 18,150/- Funeral expenses 17,500/- 18,150/- Loss of consortium 88,000/- 1,45,200/- Ambulance charges 18,750/- 18,750/- Total compensation 12,33,810/- 16,11,450/- 12. As Rs.12,33,810/- is already awarded by learned Tribunal, the appellant – original claimant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,77,640/- (Rs.16,11,450/- - Rs.12,33,810/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed . The judgment and award dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Khambhat at Anand, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.326/2020 (Old Case No.615/2017 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. 13. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed . The judgment and award dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Khambhat at Anand, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.326/2020 (Old Case No.615/2017 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. It is provided that respondent No.3 shall deposit such additional amount of Rs.3,77,640/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 14. The Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. Award to be drawn accordingly.