Judgment H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah on behalf of appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. These two appeals are filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging common award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (R) at Ahmedabad in MACP No. 631 of 2003 and MACP No. 632 of 2003, Exhibit -60 dated 13/8/2008. By said award, Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,82,400/- in MACP No. 631 of 2003 where and Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,04,400/- in MACP No. 632 of 2003. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah raised number of contentions before Claims Tribunal in written arguments, Exhibit -59. The contention is raised that identification of the vehicle is doubtful means vehicle itself is not involved and after three months, panchnama was carried out and in FIR also, unknown vehicle is mentioned. No number has been also mentioned in FIR. Therefore, he submitted that it is a duty of claimant to prove the involvement of vehicle and negligence of the driver of the said vehicle before Claims Tribunal by proper evidence. He submitted that in respect to claim Petition No. 631 of 2003, the widow of deceased expired subsequently and therefore, deleted vide Exhibit 23 and now claimant is daughter but in claim Petition No. 632 of 2003, sister is not legally entitle because she is married sister and cannot consider to be a dependent and in such circumstances 2/3 amount is to be deducted inspite of 1/3. He submitted that owner has filed affidavit before Claims Tribunal that his vehicle was not involved in accident and inspite of notice has been served to driver, no response is given by driver therefore, before Tribunal involvement of vehicle is not proved by claimants. He also raised contention in respect to compensation awarded in favour of claimant when brother died. He submitted that Claims Tribunal has committed error in awarding just compensation as compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal is on higher side and no care has been taken while applying multiplier. Therefore, interference of this Court is required. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah submitted that in absence of cogent evidence in respect to income, the income of deceased Himanshubhai assessed by Claims Tribunal of Rs. 2,000/- as a notional income is incorrect. He also raised contention that in absence of evidence of income, future prospects should not have to be considered as Rs. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah submitted that in absence of cogent evidence in respect to income, the income of deceased Himanshubhai assessed by Claims Tribunal of Rs. 2,000/- as a notional income is incorrect. He also raised contention that in absence of evidence of income, future prospects should not have to be considered as Rs. 3,000/- which is considered by Tribunal. Except that no other submissions is made by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah before this Court. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hiren Modi on behalf of respondents-claimants. He supported the award passed by Claims Tribunal. He submitted that Claims Tribunal has decided the issue in accordance with law. Involvement of vehicle was proved and complaint is filed against driver of vehicle and that fact was not denied by driver of vehicle, therefore, in short the multiplier is rightly applied considering the age of deceased and 1/3 deduction is also rightly deducted being personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, according to him, no interference is required by this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates. I have also perused the award passed by Tribunal. 6. It is necessary to note that father and son died in the accident. The accident occurred on 29/3/2003. Deceased Himanshu was driving Scooter No. GJ-1-AN-6217 and his father was pillion rider at the time of accident. At the time of accident, one Jeep No. GJ-1-AT-5229 came in full speed towards wrong side overtaking two vehicles and caused the accident. Therefore, compensation application were filed by claimant. The Insurance Company has filed written statement before Claims Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petitions. In MACP No. 631 of 2003, claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been made considering income of Rs. 4,000/- of the deceased who was working as LIC agent. Opponent No. 1 means owner of the vehicle has filed reply not filed affidavit in both the petitions denying the claim and contents of the petitions and it is stated by him that scooter driver was driving the scooter in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and scooter dashed with the jeep. It is also stated that he is owner of the jeep and it was insured by opponent No. 2-insurance company and therefore he is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant. It is also stated that he is owner of the jeep and it was insured by opponent No. 2-insurance company and therefore he is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant. These averments are made in para-5 of the judgment and award of Claims Tribunal. At this stage, submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah in respect to owner of the vehicle has to be considered by this Court when affidavit was filed by owner before Claims Tribunal that vehicle is not involved in the accident in question. The written statement if it is to be considered which has been filed by owner where he is not denying involvement of vehicle. On the contrary owner submitted that scooter driver was rash and negligently driving vehicle and not jeep driver means scooter driver was driving the scooter in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the jeep. So, owner in view of written statement filed before Claims Tribunal, establishes that jeep is involved in the accident. Therefore, in written statement it is not case of owner that jeep in question was not involved in the said accident. So identification of vehicle involved has been proved only considering written statement of the owner of jeep-opponent No. 1. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah about non-involvement of the vehicle-jeep was not correct and contrary to record. The same cannot be accepted in light of the written statement filed by owner. The contention raised by Insurance Company considering FIR and panchnama where it is mentioned that unknown vehicle was there and accident occurred on 29/3/2003, panchnama was prepared on 30/3/2003 and there is no mention of the jeep in the said panchnama and it is stated that panchnama of the jeep was prepared on 27/6/2003 after about more than 3 months of the accident and company had served notice on 10/9/2003 to owner of the jeep but that has not been complied by owner. Meaning thereby that mainly panchnama was carried out after three months and number of vehicle has not mentioned. Therefore jeep itself was not involved in the said accident but considering reply of the owner before Claims Tribunal, involvement of the jeep was proved ad admitted by owner. For that there is no separate or independent evidence is necessary. Meaning thereby that mainly panchnama was carried out after three months and number of vehicle has not mentioned. Therefore jeep itself was not involved in the said accident but considering reply of the owner before Claims Tribunal, involvement of the jeep was proved ad admitted by owner. For that there is no separate or independent evidence is necessary. The Claims Tribunal has framed issued in both the cases at Exhibit 27 and 28. The Claims Tribunal has examined the issue No. -1 of negligence and considered the evidence of applicant as well as written argument-Exh.-57, stating that the opponents have not examined any witness and also not examined driver of jeep. The applicants have produced police papers and they are exhibited on record. It is also stated that charge sheet indicates all details of accident and it is also exhibited on record. Therefore, involvement of vehicle as jeep is proved before Claims Tribunal and Claims Tribunal has considered negligence of jeep driver and averments are made in para-9, 10 and 11 of the judgment and award where entire question of negligence in detail has been discussed. Para Nos.-9, 10 and 11 reads as under: “9. As against the above, the learned Advocate for the Company has submitted his written arguments Exhibit 59 and submitted before me that for this accident, the applicants have not examined any eye-witness. The complaint Exhibit 36 was given on the basis of hearsay. As per panchnama Exhibit 37 there was scooter only at the place of the accident. The police has prepared panchnama of the vehicle on 27-6-2003 after 3 months of the accident. The learned Advocate for the company has further submitted before me that the applicants have not proved the pleadings of the claim petitions and so as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995 ACJ page 366 – “n an action based on tort the claimant has to show that the defendant was negligent” he has further relied upon the case of Pankaj Chandulal Patel vs. Bharat Transport reported in 1997 (1) G.L.R. 403 , wherein in Head Note-B it is stated that - “Sec. 166-Compensation not to be awarded mechanically on the happening of the accident, claimant has to establish negligence by leading evidence. He has therefore submitted before me that the claim petitions deserve to be dismissed. The applicants have stated in their written arguments Exhibit 57 that the jeep driver was not examined by the company. As the applicants have not proved the negligence on the part of the jeep driver, and hence the question of examining the jeep driver, does not arise. He has further submitted that looking to the panchnama, the scooter was lying at the place of accident facing Sarkhej on left side of Sarkhej-Dholka road. As per the claim petition, the jeep came from Ahmedabad side and coming towards wrong side dashed with the scooter. As per the panchnama, on left side of Ahmedabad (Sarkhej) - Dholka, wall of Garnala was broken, and the scooter, was lying facing Ahmedabad (Sarkhej). He has therefore submitted that the accident took place in unknown manner, and so the claim petitions deserve to be dismissed. 10. The applicants have produced complaint Exhibit 36, panchanama Exhibit 37 inquest panchnama Exhibit 38, P. M. Report Exhibit 39 of the deceased Laxmansinh and P.M. Report Exhibit 43 of the deceased Himanshubhai, etc. in support of their claim petitions. 11. At this stage, it would be just and proper to state that both the parties have not examined any witness so far issue of negligence is concerned. Thus, the negligence is required to be decided on the basis of the documentary evidence produced on record. The complaint Exhibit 36 was given by Dahyabhai, brother of the deceased Laxmansinh. The complaint indicates that unknown vehicle dashed with the scooter. It is pertinent to note that the complaint clearly indicates that after causing the accident, driver of unknown vehicle flee away with his vehicle. When such is the fact, then the question of presence of the offending vehicle at the place of the accident, does not arise. From the panchnama Exhibit 37, it appears that the accident took place near Garnala on left side of Sarkhej-Bavla highway road. The wall of the Garnala was found broken. The road is 22 ft. in width at the place of the accident. The scooter was found in oblique manner, facing Sarkhej side, at the place of the accident. It also appears due to dash by unknown vehicle, the front portion of the scooter was damaged. The wall of the Garnala was found broken. The road is 22 ft. in width at the place of the accident. The scooter was found in oblique manner, facing Sarkhej side, at the place of the accident. It also appears due to dash by unknown vehicle, the front portion of the scooter was damaged. At this stage, it would be just and proper to look into the contents o the chargesheet Exhibit 54. As per the chargesheet, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by Rohitbhai, opponent No. 1. The chargesheet was filed against the opp. No. 1. It clearly appears from the chargesheet that opp. No. 1 had driven the Jeep No. GJ.1.AT 5229 in full speed and in rash and negligent manner, and dashed with the Scooter No. GJ.1.AN 6217. It also appears that after causing the accident, the jeep driver flee away with his vehicle. In view of the above evidence, it clearly appears that the applicants have proved the factum of the accident i.e. date, time place and involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Moreover, the applicant has also produced a copy of panchnama Exhibit 40 prepared by the police for the jeep involved in the accident. It was prepared on 27-6-2003 and it also indicates Jeep No. GJ.1.AT 5229. As against this, the opp. No. 1 has not come forward to deny the contents of the said panchnama, and the opponent Company has also not produced evidence in rebuttal. At this stage, it would be just and proper to refer the contentions of the learned Advocate for the Company that the applicants have failed to show negligence by leading evidence, cannot be accepted. When the applicants have proved the negligence by leading the documentary evidence, then the driver of the jeep is the best witness to throw light on the issue of negligence. However, the Company has failed to examine the jeep driver and so it would be just and proper to draw adverse inference against them. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing for the Company are not helpful to him. The learned Advocate for the Company has not produced any documentary evidence in rebuttal to disprove the say of the applicants. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing for the Company are not helpful to him. The learned Advocate for the Company has not produced any documentary evidence in rebuttal to disprove the say of the applicants. 7. Therefore, according to my opinion, Claims Tribunal has rightly considered question of negligence, involvement of vehicle and the owner and insurance company had not lead any oral evidence to rebut evidence given by claimants. Therefore evidence at Exhibit 36 given by Dahyabhai which indicate that unknown vehicle jeep dashed with the scooter but it is pertinent to note that the complaint clearly indicates that after causing the accident, driver of unknown vehicle flee away with his vehicle. When such is the fact, then question of presence of offending vehicle at the place of accident does not arise. From panchnama, Exhibit-37, it appears that accident took place near Garnala on left side of Sarkhej-Bavla highway road. The wall of the Garnala was found broken. The road is 22 ft. in width at the place of accident. The Scooter was found in oblique manner facing Sarkhej side, at the place of accident. Exhibit -54 is charge sheet and as per charge sheet the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Rohitbhai-opponent No. 1. From charge sheet, it clearly appears that opponent No. 1 had driven the jeep No. GJ-1-AT-5229 in full speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Scooter No. GJ-1-AN-6217. Therefore considering these documentary evidence and not examining driver of the vehicle in question, Claims Tribunal has rightly decided question of negligence considering charge sheet and panchnama and other documents produced on record. For that according to my opinion, Tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference of this Court. Contention of learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah that driver of jeep is not responsible cannot be accepted. The charge sheet is filed against driver of jeep. That itself prima facie proved involvement of vehicle Jeep in accident (See 2000 ACJ 957 and decision in FA No. 2162 of 2002 decided on 22/8/2006). 8. In respect to quantum of compensation, Tribunal has examined applicant No. 2-Rakshaben. She has filed affidavit, Exhibit -33. The charge sheet is filed against driver of jeep. That itself prima facie proved involvement of vehicle Jeep in accident (See 2000 ACJ 957 and decision in FA No. 2162 of 2002 decided on 22/8/2006). 8. In respect to quantum of compensation, Tribunal has examined applicant No. 2-Rakshaben. She has filed affidavit, Exhibit -33. affidavit stating contents of petition that her father was aged about 62 years at the time of accident and her father was serving in Agriculture Department and as he was retired, he was receiving pension of Rs. 3,788/- per month. In respect to death of son when he was working as LIC agent and was receiving Rs. 4,000/- per month and according to the claim of claimant, Rs. 5,98,200/- compensation the claimant is entitled. Against which claimant was examined at Exhibit 33 by producing affidavit. It is stated by sister, claimant No. 2 that deceased brother Himanshu was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and her brother has studied LLB and doing work of LIC receiving income of Rs. 3,500/- per month. The claimant has produced documentary evidence which consists of Pass-book, Exhibit -44 issued by UTI Bank in the name of Himanshu for Savings Bank Account and statement of transactions made between 1/1/2003 to 31/3/2003 at Exhibit 45 and also produced identity card at Exhibit 46. The Claims Tribunal has considered that it is not possible to come to exact income of the deceased. No other evidence is produced to establish income of deceased. Therefore, income of Rs. 2,000/- is considered by the Tribunal as notional income. For a person who died in accident aged 24 years, studied up to LLB and working as agent of LIC and accident occurred in the year 2003, Rs. 2,000/- as a notional income per month cannot be considered to be unreasonable assessment by Claims Tribunal. Rs. 4,000/- has been considered as prospective income. Thereafter, it has been divided and then total amount comes to Rs. 3,000/- (2000+4000=6000/2) and 1/3 of the same has been deducted and thereafter 2/3 comes to Rs. 2,000/- looking to the age of deceased. 16 multiplier has been applied. On that basis it comes to Rs. 3,84,000/- then adding Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses, the total comes to Rs. 4,04,000/- being just compensation in favour of claimant. The contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. 2,000/- looking to the age of deceased. 16 multiplier has been applied. On that basis it comes to Rs. 3,84,000/- then adding Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses, the total comes to Rs. 4,04,000/- being just compensation in favour of claimant. The contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah that sister is claimant then such amount should not have to be awarded by Claims Tribunal. He submitted that multiplier 16 is on higher side. He also submitted that initially mother was claimant but during pendency of claim petition, she expired and therefore only sister remained as claimant. Contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul Shah that in absence of cogent evidence of income, future prospects of income should not have to be taken into account. The person who was working as LIC agent, at least he must have show some proof that this much amount is receiving as an employee. He was working as LIC agent therefore, it is considered to be an independent profession being LIC agent and his income is depend upon the work which has been done by him. For proof of income, relevant material is produced on record i.e. Pass-book issued by UTI Bank, statement of transactions between 1/1/2003 to 31/3/2003. So enough material was available with Claims Tribunal to find out income of the deceased and he was studied up to LLB and as per evidence of claimant and he was working as LIC agent for more than three years, amount of Rs. 2,000/- cannot considered to be an income without any base or cogent evidence. So, Rs. 2,000/- which has been worked out by Tribunal cannot considered to be without any base. That cannot considered to be an amount of income as it has been fixed without any cogent evidence. A direct evidence of income is not possible when a person was working as LIC agent. Therefore, some material was produced on record which justify the income to be assessed by the Claims Tribunal. The record showing income of deceased drawing some light then Claims Tribunal is entitle to decide such income as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anita Devi & Ors. vs. Satyendra Narain Singh & Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5199. The record showing income of deceased drawing some light then Claims Tribunal is entitle to decide such income as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anita Devi & Ors. vs. Satyendra Narain Singh & Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5199. Therefore, contention that merely a direct evidence is not available, future prospect income should not have to be taken, is not correct because a labourer also having future prospect income. Not only Class-I officer or higher officer have future prospects. In society a small person have also future prospective income because he is working with a hope that in future he will get some more amount. The daily wager workman prior to ten years was receiving small amount of wages and now a days they are receiving Rs. 120/- to 150/- so future prospect is natural rise. That should not have decreased but should have to be increased. Therefore, contention raised that, there is no stability of income and therefore, future prospect cannot be considered, cannot be accepted. The Claims Tribunal has rightly considered aspect of future prospects. For that the Tribunal has not committed any error. (See United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bindu and Ors., reported in 2009 (3) SCC 705 ). 9. In respect to involvement of vehicle, there was sufficient evidence as per decision of this Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. and another vs. Dayaben Jayantilal Panchal, reported in 2000 ACJ 957. The said decision has been considered by this Court in First Appeal No. 2162 of 2002 dated 22/8/2006. Therefore, a charge sheet received by the driver not denied by driver giving evidence before Claims Tribunal which prove involvement of the vehicle. Before the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Bana Bai & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal & Ors., reported in I (2005) ACC 388, a crucial question has been examined that of identification of vehicle. In that case, the claimant’s witnesses have clearly pointed out that accident was caused by Matador No. MOD-6750, owned by Income Tax Department, Bhopal. The respondent’s witnesses do not deny that vehicle belonged to the Income Tax Department. Therefore, it is clearly established that vehicle caused the accident. In that case, the claimant’s witnesses have clearly pointed out that accident was caused by Matador No. MOD-6750, owned by Income Tax Department, Bhopal. The respondent’s witnesses do not deny that vehicle belonged to the Income Tax Department. Therefore, it is clearly established that vehicle caused the accident. Further, evidence also discloses that certain persons who saw taking place of accident, ran after the vehicle and went to the hospital, and gave this number of the vehicle. In view of these facts looking to the written statement filed by owner before the Claims Tribunal where involvement of the vehicle has been admitted by the owner not denied by driver, in such circumstances, there is sufficient evidence before Tribunal which proved involvement of vehicle. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah cannot be accepted. 10. Further contention of learned Advocate is that Tribunal should not deduct 1/3 from the income of the deceased but 2/3 from the income of deceased. I have considered this contention but question is that when deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- as assessed by the Claims Tribunal and deduction of 1/3 is made as per second schedule read with Section 163-A, therefore, 1/3 deduction is proper. It cannot be presumed that claimant is sister therefore, 2/3 is to be deducted. Such proposition is contrary to law. Therefore, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah cannot be accepted and Claims Tribunal has rightly examined matter for said point on the basis of evidence on record. For deduction of personal expenses, date of accident is relevant. At that time, mother of deceased was alive who subsequently died during pendency of claim petition. Therefore 1/3 is rightly deducted by the Claims Tribunal. 11. Contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah that pleading where claimant had demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- even though Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,04,000/- beyond the claim demanded by claimant without any amendment made in the claim petition. For the same, observation is made by Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himacahl Road Transport Corporation & Ors. in CA No. 2538 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 280 of 2006), decided on 15/4/2009. 4,04,000/- beyond the claim demanded by claimant without any amendment made in the claim petition. For the same, observation is made by Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himacahl Road Transport Corporation & Ors. in CA No. 2538 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 280 of 2006), decided on 15/4/2009. The view taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-12 that: “While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle.” Further observation is in para-15 that: “In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.” In view of view taken by Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above, the contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah cannot be accepted. Otherwise also there is power of Tribunal under Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act to award just compensation to the claimant more than claim made in the claim petition. The claimant are not able to work out proper compensation in the petition. They are not aware about legal position and factual aspect of the case. Sometimes, lawyer also committed mistake in calculating the compensation. For that Claimant should not have to suffer. An expert bench being a Tribunal, it is duty to consider the case of the claimant for proper compensation and just compensation is to be awarded by the Claims Tribunal irrespective of the demand of the claimant. Therefore, according to my opinion, that contention of learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah also cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 12. An expert bench being a Tribunal, it is duty to consider the case of the claimant for proper compensation and just compensation is to be awarded by the Claims Tribunal irrespective of the demand of the claimant. Therefore, according to my opinion, that contention of learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah also cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 12. In view of the above discussion made by this Court in respect to each contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah, according to my opinion, Claims Tribunal has rightly examined matter and rightly discussed evidence on record. For that no error is committed by Tribunal which requires interference of this Court. 13. In view of the above, according to my opinion, there is no substance in the above appeals and therefore both these appeals are dismissed. 14. If any amount is deposited by the appellant before the Registry of this Court, the Registry of this Court is directed to transmit the same to the concerned Tribunal.