JUDGMENT : H.K. RATHOD, J. 1. In this appeal, as no one was appearing on behalf of appellants original claimants, this court passed following order on 31.1.2008: “Since no one appears for the appellant, learned counsel, Mr. Nitin Amin, who was present in the Court was requested to assist the Court as an amicus curiae and he having consented, his name may be shown as appearing for the appellant. Learned counsel Mr. Amin shall have access to the papers of the Court as well as the Record and Proceedings of the trial Court. S.O. to 27th February 2008 at his request.” 2. Therefore, today, on behalf of learned Advocate Mr. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate Mr. Karanjit Vadodaria has remained present and argued matter for appellants claimants and learned Advocate Mr. Thomas has remained present for learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent insurance company. 3. This appeal is preferred by appellants claiming Rs. 34,500/- being enhanced amount of claim, from respondents. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Thomas for respondent insurance company has submitted that in this matter, appellant No. 1 Virsinh Bamania Bhil has died during the pendency of first appeal and now, appellant No. 2 Minor Kaliben Virsinh Bhil is the sole appellant who has become major during pendency of this appeal before this court. 5. Appellant has challenged award made by MACT Kheda at Nadiad in Claim Petition No. 739 of 1989 Exh.36 decided on 18th September, 1991 wherein claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 66,500/- with 12 per cent interest in favour of claimants. Facts of first appeal are as under: Original applicant Virsinh was husband of deceased Shantaben and original applicant No. 2 Kaliben [now sole claimant] who was minor at the relevant point of time is daughter of deceased Shantaben. Claim petition was filed by claimants before claims tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to fatal accidental death of deceased Shantaben because of rash and negligent driving of truck driver opponent No. 1. It was alleged that on 18.11.86, applicants and deceased Shantaben were sleeping on a bus stand Santhana in the night at 9.00 o'clock and at that time, from Kheda, Truck No. GTH-4280 driven by driver of opponent No. 1 Chandubhai Naranbhai who is owner of truck and due to rash and negligent act of driving, accident occurred. Accident had occurred on 18.11.86 and deceased died on 5.5.88. Accident had occurred on 18.11.86 and deceased died on 5.5.88. Therefore, claim petition was filed on 21.6.88 as an indigent person, claiming total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from opponents wherein claims tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 66,500/- and, therefore, this appeal is filed by claimants claiming Rs. 34,500/-. Before claims tribunal, FIR was produced at Exh.16 and panchanama at Exh.17. FIR was given by driver of truck namely Dahyabhai Revabhai on 19.11.86 alleging how accident has happened. It was stated that one truck was parked to get down passengers of the truck and at that time, one lady was crossing road from behind the truck. She was going to village Santhana and she run on a road and she dashed with the truck. She was injured and looking to crowd of people, truck driver had ran away by leaving truck and lodged FIR in police station. Panchanama was also produced. Deposition of applicant No. 1 Virsinhbhai was recorded at Exh.19 before claims tribunal wherein it was stated by him in para 2 that when deceased Shantaben was sitting, the wheel of the truck ran over on both the legs and, therefore, fracture injuries of both legs caused to deceased Shantaben. It was denied by him that accident occurred while crossing road. It was also denied by him that accident occurred on rear wheel of truck. Before claims tribunal, opponent No. 1 owner of vehicle had not filed any written statement and also not stepped in witness box denying allegations made by claimants on oath and, therefore, claims tribunal believed evidence of claimants supported by FIR and other papers on record and, therefore, based on that, claims tribunal held that there is negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Thereafter, question of quantum has been examined by claims tribunal. Contention was raised by advocate for insurance company that deceased not died due to injury of accident and applicant could not prove nexus between death and accident as deceased died due to injury of accident, death is direct result due to injury sustained in the accident by the deceased. It was also contended by advocate for appellant that claim petition is filed late. Accident occurred in 1986 and claim petition is filed after 1988, after death of injured Shantaben. It was also contended by advocate for appellant that claim petition is filed late. Accident occurred in 1986 and claim petition is filed after 1988, after death of injured Shantaben. It was also contention raised before claims tribunal by learned advocate for insurance company that claims tribunal has exhibited some documents but mere exhibiting document does not dispense with its proof. It was submitted that without cross examination of medical officer, it cannot be said that certificate is basis for award. It was also submitted on behalf of insurance company before claims tribunal that statement recorded by police cannot be taken in evidence against opponent without examining police officer, writer of it. It was alternatively submitted that in present case, one truck was parked and one lady suddenly came out behind truck and tried to over take truck and, therefore, she was dashed against rear portion of truck and, therefore, there is no negligence on the part of truck driver. It was also submitted that truck driver could not be examined by opponent No. 2 as truck driver died. It was also submitted before claims tribunal that deceased was also negligent and it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of claimant. As against that, it was submitted by advocate for claimant before claims tribunal that deceased died due to accident and evidence of eye witness Virsinhbhai Exh.19 is sufficient evidence for proving claim petition. Deceased was 38 years old and was earning Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per day from labour work and therefore prayer was made to award compensation as prayed for. 6. Considering submissions made by both learned advocates, claims tribunal observed as under in para 4 of award: “(4) I have fully heard the learned Advocates. L.A. Mr. Mehta has cited number of authorities on the point of admissible evidence. The authorities cited by LA Mr. Mehta are on the well known established principle of law and I do not think it require to discuss at length. In present case, there is no evidence on behalf of opponent No. 1 and 2. They have not led any evidence oral or any documentary evidence in support of their contention. The authorities cited by LA Mr. Mehta are on the well known established principle of law and I do not think it require to discuss at length. In present case, there is no evidence on behalf of opponent No. 1 and 2. They have not led any evidence oral or any documentary evidence in support of their contention. The evidence of witness Virsinh Exh.19 and medical certificate, case papers mark 14/1 to 14/4 wherein it is clearly stated that there was fracture injury on the feet of deceased Shantaben, she was operated in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, stayed 3 months for long treatment in civil hospital, Ahmedabad as an indoor patient. Again she has to remain in hospital for 3 months. Applicant No. 1 Virsinh who is husband of deceased, he is residing 8 kms far from Santrampur and due to the poor position, he could not often take his wife for the medical treatment and before the Tribunal also, the applicant due to poor condition, could not call Doctor but in such position, evidence of Virsinhbhai cannot totally denied and he has stated in his oral evidence Exh.19 para 3, due to septic on legs and shock of that pain, his wife died. This evidence cannot be thrown out or it can be said that it is false evidence because for 6 months poor lady stayed in hospital. There is fracture of two legs and under these circumstances, it is probable and believable evidence. So the death is only due to the result of accident and that fact is proved then I do not think it require further more evidence to clarify that facts. Under these circumstances, arguments of LA Mr. K.A. Mehta are not convincing to me that deceased Shantaben not died due to accidental injury. Hence I award the following amount as compensation.” 7. Therefore, claims tribunal awarded Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of income while considering monthly income at Rs. 450/- and deducting Rs. 150/- towards personal expenses, held that Rs. 300/- is monthly loss of income, yearly Rs. 3600/- and then applied multiplier of 15. Claims tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs. 2000/- for special diet, medical and attendant and transportation and Rs. 500/- for funeral expenses. 8. Considering finding given by claims tribunal, in facts of this case, there is no evidence on behalf of opponent No. 1 and 2. 3600/- and then applied multiplier of 15. Claims tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life, Rs. 2000/- for special diet, medical and attendant and transportation and Rs. 500/- for funeral expenses. 8. Considering finding given by claims tribunal, in facts of this case, there is no evidence on behalf of opponent No. 1 and 2. No oral or documentary evidence was led by opponent No. 1 and 2 in support of their contention. In light of that, claims tribunal considered evidence of claimant Virsinh Exh.19 and medical certificate, case papers mark 14/1 to 14/4 as per which there was fracture injury on feet of deceased Shantaben. She was operated in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, stayed 3 months for long treatment in civil hospital, Ahmedabad as an indoor patient. Claims Tribunal also considered that again she has to remain in hospital for 3 months. Considering position of applicant No. 1, Virsinh, husband of deceased, claims tribunal observed that he is residing 8 kms far from Santrampur and due to the poor position, he could not often take his wife for the medical treatment and before the Tribunal also, the applicant due to his poor financial condition, could not examine Doctor but in such position, evidence of Virsinhbhai cannot totally thrown out and considering his oral evidence at Exh.19 para 3 that due to septic on legs and shock of that pain, his wife died, claims tribunal held that this evidence cannot be thrown out or it can not be said that it is false evidence because for 6 months poor lady stayed in hospital. Claims tribunal also considered that there is fracture of two legs and under these circumstances, it is probable and believable evidence. So the death is only due to the result of accident and that fact is proved then I do not think it require further more evidence to clarify that facts. In light of these facts, question to be examined is whether the amount awarded by claims tribunal could be considered as adequate or not in a case wherein Shantaben has lost her life. Here, it is required to be noted that the respondent insurance company has not challenged award made by claims tribunal holding that there is nexus between accident and death of deceased Shantaben and has also not challenged finding of claims tribunal about negligence on the part of driver of offending truck. Here, it is required to be noted that the respondent insurance company has not challenged award made by claims tribunal holding that there is nexus between accident and death of deceased Shantaben and has also not challenged finding of claims tribunal about negligence on the part of driver of offending truck. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Vadodaria for Mr. Amin for appellant claimant submitted that before claims tribunal, evidence was given by claimant for proving income of deceased, Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per day by doing labour work against which no evidence to the contrary was produced by opponents, insurance company in particular and, therefore, claims tribunal is not justified in determining monthly income of deceased at Rs. 450/- only and such assessment of income made by claims tribunal is on its lower side and same is required to be enhanced by this court. He submitted that claims tribunal ought to have considered income of deceased at Rs. 600/- per month. He also submitted that looking to age of deceased 38 years, multiplier of 15 applied by claims tribunal is also on its lower side and claims tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 17. He relied upon recent decision of apex court in case of Kimli Bai, 2009 (6) Supreme Today 106 and submitted that in that case, supreme court considered case of carpenter aged 40 years and applied multiplier of 17. He also raised grievance that no amount has been awarded by claims tribunal for loss of consortium and Rs. 2000/- only has been awarded for special died, medical and transportation attendance which is also on its lower side. He also submitted that for pain, shock and suffering also, no amount is awarded though deceased suffered such pain, shock and suffering for a period of about more than two years from date of accident till date of death, remained in hospital and suffered a lot from 18th November, 1986 to 5th May, 1988 and, therefore, he prayed to enhance amount of compensation suitably. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Thomas submitted that claims tribunal has rightly examined matter and has rightly awarded amount of compensation and it is not a case for enhancement. 11. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Thomas submitted that claims tribunal has rightly examined matter and has rightly awarded amount of compensation and it is not a case for enhancement. 11. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. Looking to evidence on record produced by claimants against which there was no any evidence in rebuttal from insurance company, according to my opinion, claims tribunal is not justified in assessing income of deceased Shantaben at Rs. 450/- only as against claim of claimant that deceased was earning Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per day by doing labour work etc. Claims tribunal has also not considered future prospective income of deceased. According to my opinion, instead of Rs. 450/- per month, it would be just and proper to assess income of deceased at Rs. 600/- per month considering future prospective income of deceased. Thereafter, if 1/3rd is deducted therefrom towards her personal expenses, her contribution to the family would come to Rs. 400/- per month which could be considered as loss of future income of the deceased, therefore, annual figure would come to Rs. 4800/-. Admittedly, deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of that, considering decision of apex court in case of Kimliben, according to my opinion, if multiplier of 17 is applied instead of 15 as has been applied by claims tribunal, then, it comes to Rs. 81600/- being loss of future income by claimants. Out of that amount, amount of Rs. 54000/- awarded by claims tribunal is required to be deducted. Therefore, deducting Rs. 54000/- from Rs. 81600/- claimants are entitled to have additional amount of Rs. 27,600/- as additional amount towards loss of future income. No amount is awarded by claims tribunal for pain, shock and suffering, therefore, though deceased suffered such pain, shock and suffering for a period of more than two year and remained as indoor patient in hospital, therefore, on that head, an amount of Rs. 15000/- is required to be awarded. Therefore, in all, claimant is entitled enhancement of Rs. 42,600/- (Rs. 27,600/- + Rs. 15000) as just, reasonable and adequate amount of compensation for which claimant is entitled from respondent insurance company as per section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, with 12 per cent interest from the date of claim petition till date of realisation with proportionate costs as has been awarded by claims tribunal. 12. 42,600/- (Rs. 27,600/- + Rs. 15000) as just, reasonable and adequate amount of compensation for which claimant is entitled from respondent insurance company as per section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, with 12 per cent interest from the date of claim petition till date of realisation with proportionate costs as has been awarded by claims tribunal. 12. Therefore, in result, this appeal is allowed. Award passed by claims tribunal, Nadiad dated 18th September, 1991 in MACP No. 739 of 1989 Exh.36 is modified to the effect that claimant Kaliben Virsinh Bhil is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 42,600/- with 12 per cent interest from date of filing of claim petition till amount of compensation deposited by insurance company before claims tribunal with proportionate costs. Therefore, it is directed to respondent Chandubhai Naranbhai Patel and United India Insurance Company to deposit enhanced amount of compensation as referred to above before claims tribunal Nadiad within two months from date of receiving copy of this order with 12 per cent interest from date of claim petition till date of deposit without fail. 13. After realising said amount from respondent insurance company, it is directed to claims tribunal Nadiad to pay total amount deposited by insurance company to appellant Kaliben Virsinh Bhil by way of an account payee cheque after proper verification immediately and without fail. First appeal stands allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.