JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants – original claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned judgment and award dated 23rd August, 2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) & 16th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1530 of 1999, whereby, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,79,000/- towards the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

2. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was ordered to be awarded to the deponents. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, this appeal has been filed.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that the deceased Ramchandra L.Sugdare was driving his bicycle slowly on his correct side on 22.6.1999. That, Opponent No.1 came from the wrong side driving his ST Bus No. GJ-01-Z-3788 rashly, negligently and carelessly and dashed his bus with the bicycle. Deceased tumbled down from the bicycle and sustained grievous injuries and other bodily injuries due to said accident and died during the treatment at SSG Hospital, Vadodara on 26.6.1999. Hence, the appellants – original claimants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.4,79,000/- under the different heads as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – G.S.R.T.C.

5. Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while considering the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- . He has further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that deceased was doing paint work and meson work and was earning Rs.300/- per day. Learned Tribunal after considering the above fact ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal committed an error while considering 30% future prospective income and on the basis of Rs.2500/- , learned Tribunal ought to have been considered the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the prospective income is required to be considered and looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 40 years at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal ought to have given 50% rise in future prospective income of the deceased on the basis of Rs.9000/- income. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of loss of consortium as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. Therefore, learned advocate for the appellants has requested this Court to modify the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal and allow the present appeal.

6. As against that Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 -G.S.R.T.C. has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. She has submitted that so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is no cogent and proper proof or evidence led by the appellants about the income of the deceased and even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, no interference is called for.

7. Having considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused t