JUDGMENT : HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same accident and the grounds and issue involved in the appeals are common, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The First Appeal No.1961 of 2024 arises out of MAC Petition No.161 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014) and First Appeal No.2036 of 2024 arises out of MAC Petition No.160 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.585 of 2014). 1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Petlad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as " the Tribunal " for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.161 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014), and 160 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.585 of 2014), the appellants – original claimants have preferred the present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as " the Act " for short). 2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. A. Bhalodi, for the appellants – original Claimants, learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak, for the respondent no.2 – Insurance Company and learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent no.4 – Insurance Company. Perused the original record and proceedings. 3) It is the case of the appellants that on 09.08.2014, the deceased were travelling from Devataj in Toofan Cruiser bearing Reg. No.GJ-07-BB-7086, and proceeded towards Gandhar and whey they reached at the place of incident tyre of the said car got punctured and hence the driver of the car has parked his car on road side and they are standing near the car at that time the opponent no.1 came by driving the Truck bearing Reg. No.GJ-03-AT-1800 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the car as a result of which car went to the road side ditch and deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the appellants have filed MAC Petitions seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record the has partly allowed both the claim petitions. 4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by considering notional income of the deceased and not awarded loss of consortium to each of the appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow both the appeals. 4) Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by considering notional income of the deceased and not awarded loss of consortium to each of the appellants. Hence, he has requested to allow both the appeals. 5) Learned Advocates for respondent nos.2 and 4 – Insurance Companies have opposed the present appeals on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by properly appreciating the evidence produced on record and hence the same is just, legal and proper and no interference is required to call for. With these submissions they have requested to dismiss both the appeals. 6) As both the appeals are filed on limited grounds the same are required to be decided in narrow compass. FIRST APPEAL NO.1961 of 2024 (MAC PETITION NO.161 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014)) 7) As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC) , that if no proof of income is produced on the record then Tribunal has to consider prevalent rates of minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case the accident was occurred on 09.08.2014 and during that time the deceased was doing agricultural and animal husbandry work and on the basis of which the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced by considering the rate of minimum wages of the year 2014 and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.6,000/- per month . Further, the Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 44 years and on the basis of it 25% addition towards future prospect, and the deceased having 5 dependents deduction of ¼ towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 14 were considered as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] which are just and proper. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] which are just and proper. 8) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and future prospect of 25% = Rs.1,500/- which comes to Rs.7,500/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.1,875/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,625/- . In view of above the amount towards future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,625/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.9,45,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,57,416/- towards future loss of income. 9) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three 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 appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- 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, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 , the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.2,42,000/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 5). Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.2,02,000/- towards loss of consortium. 11) As discussed above, the appellants are entitled to get compensation computed as under: 12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.8,57,584/- (due to arithmetical mistake the Tribunal has mentioned Rs.8,57,585/-), however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the Tribunal. FIRST APPEAL NO.2036 of 2024 (MAC PETITION NO.160 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.585 of 2014)) 13) As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC) , that if no proof of income is produced on the record then Tribunal has to consider prevalent rates of minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the deceased. In the present case the accident was occurred on 09.08.2014 and during that time the deceased was working as Clerk in Dairy and also doing agricultural and animal husbandry work and on the basis of which the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month which is required to be enhanced by considering the rate of minimum wages of the year 2014 and hence, the income of the deceased is reassessed as Rs.6,000/- per month . Further, the Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 44 years and on the basis of it 25% addition towards future prospect, and the deceased having 5 dependents deduction of ¼ towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and multiplier of 14 were considered as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] which are just and proper. 14) Therefore, recalculating the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- and future prospect of 25% = Rs.1,500/- which comes to Rs.7,500/- and 1/4 amount is required to be deducted as personal expenditure and living of the deceased which comes to Rs.1,875/- and the net amount comes to Rs.5,625/- . In view of above the amount towards future loss of income is required to be reassessed as Rs.5,625/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.9,45,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.1,57,416/- towards future loss of income. 15) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three 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. 15) Further, the learned Tribunal by relying on the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , has awarded total Rs.70,000/- under the three 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 appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.6,300/- (i.e. Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- - Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,150/- towards funeral expenses). 16) 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, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors., Vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 , the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, however, in view of above judgments the appellants being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.48,400/- each towards the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, the amount towards loss of consortium is reassessed as Rs.2,42,000/- (i.e. Rs.48,400/- X 5). Therefore, the appellants are entitled for additional amount of Rs.2,02,000/- towards loss of consortium. 17) As discussed above, the appellants are entitled to get compensation computed as under: 18) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.8,57,584/- (due to arithmetical mistake the Tribunal has mentioned Rs.8,57,585/-), however, as discussed above the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 19) In the wake of above, the appellants of First Appeal No.2036 of 2024 are entitled to receive additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/- and the appellants of First Appeal No.1961 of 2024 are entitled to receive additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/- with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 20) Hence, both the present appeals are partly allowed . The judgment and award dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Petlad, in MAC Petition Nos.161 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014) and No.160 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.585 of 2014), stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The judgment and award dated 14.02.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Petlad, in MAC Petition Nos.161 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.586 of 2014) and No.160 of 2018 (Old MAC Petition No.585 of 2014), stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. 21) In First Appeal No.1961 of 2024 , the respondents – Insurance Companies shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/- along with interest in the ratio as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 22) In First Appeal No.2036 of 2024 the respondents – Insurance Companies shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.3,65,716/- along with interest in the ratio as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 23) Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 24) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly. 25) Award to be drawn accordingly.