JUDGMENT : MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J. 1. The captioned appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No. 578 of 2014, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition, and awarded a sum of Rs.4,52,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, as compensation. 2. The succinct facts, which led to the filing of the captioned appeal, as narrated in the Claim Petition is summarized as under:- i. On 28.02.2014, the deceased Mr. Jay Chatrabhujbhai Khant, was travelling in a motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-3FN-390, as a pillion rider. The said motorcycle was driven by its driver at a very moderate speed and on the correct side of the road, by observing traffic rules. When they reached near the place of the accident, in the meantime, one truck bearing registration No.GJ-25T-9495 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, suddenly turned towards right side without any sign or signal, as a result, the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling dashed with the truck, thereby causing the accident. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the said injuries. ii. It is the case of the original claimants/appellants herein before the learned Tribunal that at the time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years and he was working in a patidar store, thereby earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, the original claimants preferred the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- each. iii. Having been served with the notices/summons of the Claim Petitions, Original opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein had chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal. While original opponent No.1/respondent No.1 herein and respondent No.2 & 4 – Insurance Companies, filed its Written Statement, thereby denying the averments made in the Claim Petition, and prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition. iv.Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether it has been proved that the deceased died because of serious injuries caused to him a vehicular accident ? 2. iv.Having considered the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether it has been proved that the deceased died because of serious injuries caused to him a vehicular accident ? 2. Whether it is proved that the alleged vehicular accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle ? 3. What order and award ? v. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the Claim Petition, and awarded a sum of Rs.4,52,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petitions till its realization, as compensation. vi. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the original claimants/appellants herein have preferred the captioned appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. Mr. Sandip B. Chohala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the original claimants/appellants herein vehemently submitted that at the time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years and was pursuing the degree of B.A. In addition to his studies, he was also working in a patidar store, thereby earning Rs.20,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month, which is at a very lower side. He further submitted that the income of the deceased could not be proved on record before the learned Tribunal by leading any cogent evidence. He contended that in the absence of any cogent evidence on income, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident, which was Rs.6,100/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,100/- per month. He contented that the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts of compensation under the conventional heads. He contended that the captioned appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. 5. Per contra, Ms. Kirti S. Pathak learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and Mr. He contented that the learned Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts of compensation under the conventional heads. He contended that the captioned appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. 5. Per contra, Ms. Kirti S. Pathak learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and Mr. Harsh Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 – Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded just compensation under all the heads, as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award, and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal preferred by the original claimants/appellants herein seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the material available on record, the original claimants/appellants herein have preferred the captioned appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is not in dispute that at the time of the vehicular accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years, 5 months and 24 days. The original claimants/appellants herein could not prove on record the income of the deceased by leading any cogent evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident as Rs.2,000/- per annum. In the absence of any cogent evidence on income, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the vehicular accident. The accident in question took place on 28.02.2014. At the relevant point of time, the monthly minimum wage notified by the State Government of Gujarat was Rs.6,100/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased at the time of vehicular accident is reassessed at Rs.6,100/- per month. 8. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years, 5 months and 24 days, therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the notional monthly income of the deceased is to be enhanced by 40% on account of the future prospects of the deceased. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the notional monthly income of the deceased is to be enhanced by 40% on account of the future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, after adding 40% of the notional income to the monthly income of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.8,540/- (i.e, Rs.6,100/- plus 40% of Rs.6,100/-). 9. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the deceased was unmarried, therefore, 50% of the monthly notional income is required to be deducted on account of the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 50% of the monthly income on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly income for calculating the future loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,270/- (i.e., Rs.8,540/- minus 50% of Rs.8,540/-). 10. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the multiplier of “18” is required to be applied. Therefore, after applying the multiplier of “18”, the original claimants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.9,22,320/- (i.e, Rs.4,270/- X 12 months X multiplier of “18”) under the head of Future Loss of Dependency. 11. It is on record that the deceased was survived by three legal representatives, i.e., his parents and sister. Therefore, all the three legal representatives are entitled to get compensation under the head of Loss of consortium in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Thus, in view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, a sum of Rs.1,45,200/- (i.e., Rs.48,400/- X 3) is awarded under the head of Loss of consortium. Since compensation has already been awarded under the head of Loss of consortium, therefore, no separate compensation is required to be awarded under the head of Loss of love and affection. 12. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the heads of Loss of estate and Funeral Expenses. The said amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal are not in consonance with the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. The learned Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of compensation under the heads of Loss of estate and Funeral Expenses. The said amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal are not in consonance with the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, after considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, a sum of Rs.18,150/- is awarded under the head of Loss of Estate, and similarly a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded under the head of Funeral expenses. 13. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants/appellants herein shall be entitled for the following amount of compensation:- 14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the original claimants shall be entitled for an additional compensation to the tune of Rs.6,51,420/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. The said rate of interest is maintained; accordingly, the original claimants shall be entitled to 9% of interest per annum on the additional amount of compensation from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization. 15. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent, and accordingly, the captioned appeal preferred by the original claimants stands partly allowed. 16. Respondent No.2 & 4 – Insurance Companies shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest within a period of six weeks from today, in the same ratio as decided by the learned Tribunal. Upon depositing the said amount, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount to the original claimants (deducting deficit Court fee, if any), after due verification. 17. Statutory amount, if any, lying deposited with the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal concerned forthwith. Records & Proceedings, if any be sent to the learned Tribunal concerned. No order as to costs. 18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.