JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.13,21,950/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') vide Award dated 5.12.2018 passed in MACT Petition No.10 of 2017/2018 under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Claimants are the mother and two major brothers aged 23-1/2 years and 21 years respectively, of the deceased Sourabh Kumar who was aged 18 years at the time of his death.

2. Ld. Tribunal on the appraisal of facts, pleadings and evidence on record held that the deceased had died due to injuries suffered by him in motor vehicular accident that took place on 1.2.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. HR-58-A-8208 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.4. The Tribunal awarded compensation as above along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Liability to pay the compensation was joint and several.

3. Ld. counsel for the appellants seeks enhancement of compensation on the ground of consortium. It is submitted that the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT is a beneficial legislation and therefore, consortium of Rs.40,000/- ought to have been awarded to each of the claimants whereas ld. Tribunal has granted only Rs.40,000/- towards consortium.

4. No other argument has been raised.

5. Heard ld. counsel.

6. Perusal of the impugned Award reveals that it was pleaded case of the claimants that the deceased was doing denting/painting work with Sai Motor Garage, Near Chawla Palace on National Highway No.7, Kala Amb-Naraingarh Road, near Naraingarh and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from the said occupation. Claimants examined PW2 Sunil Kumar who deposed that he was owner of the said Motor Garage and that the deceased was employed with his Motor Garage for last three years and was working as skilled mechanic. However, as the said PW2 did not produce any account books or any other record whatsoever to prove employment of the deceased with M/s Sai Garage, therefore, ld. Tribunal fixed notional income of the deceased as Rs.8280/- per month on the basis of relevant Minimum Wage Notification issued by the State Government. Even now ld. counsel for the appellant has produced nothing before this Court to prove above said employment of the deceased. Accordingly, I find no error in the notional income of Rs.8280/- as assessed by the ld. Tribunal.

7. After assessing notional income of the deceased, ld. Tribunal awarded compensation as follows:

8. It was pleaded case of the appellants before the ld. Tribunal that the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of hi