1. By medium of this appeal award dated 22.12.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, is assailed. Factual matrix which has given rise to the filing of instant appeal is precisely noticed: "Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Budgam, lost his life in a tragic road accident at Zangam Pattan when vehicle(Alto) which he was driving was hit by an army vehicle. Regarding occurrence case has been registered as FIR No.128/2006 P/S Pattan. The deceased is survived by two widows (respondent No.1 & 4), one son (respondent No.2) and two daughters (respondent No.3 and 5. They filed claim petition before MACT, Srinagar, trial whereof culminated in passing the award impugned. The appellants before the Tribunal, in their written statement, had pleaded that the deceased was driving his Maruti Alto rashly, negligently and at a reckless speed and while talking on his cell phone negotiated a curve and lost control, as a result thereof Maruti Alto collided with the army vehicle which was stationary on the left side of the road. On the basis of respective pleadings, as many as four issues have been framed. Claimants-respondents in support of their claim have examined as many as four witnesses whereas the appellants, in their defence, have examined three witnesses. The witnesses produced by the claimants before the Tribunal, namely, Altaf Ahmad Mir has stated that on the date of occurrence he was traveling from Srinagar towards Baramulla in a TATA Sumo. While reaching to Zangam, they noticed the army vehicles coming from opposite direction, one of the army vehicles did hit Maruti Alto. He and other passengers alighted from the vehicle (Sumo) and reached the accident site where they found that Mushtaq Ahmad Mir, Assistant Executive Engineer, was fatally injured and the vehicle was extensively damaged. They noticed the hitting of Maruti Alto by the army vehicle as they were only at a distance of 20 feet. In cross examination he has qualified that Alto was hit by the army vehicle from the front side, shattering its wind screen. The army vehicle was coming from the wrong side. Similar is the statement of PW Peer Khalid Lateef who has qualified that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of army vehicle and has further qualified that the deceased was not talking on cell phone. The army vehicle was coming from the wrong side. Similar is the statement of PW Peer Khalid Lateef who has qualified that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of army vehicle and has further qualified that the deceased was not talking on cell phone. In cross examination he has also qualified that the road is straight, there is no sharp curve on the spot of occurrence, there was no vehicle in between their vehicle and the Alto. The big truck i.e. offending vehicle, was part of a convoy of the army vehicles. The army vehicle was going very fast at about 100 Kms/hour, within ten minutes police reached the spot. He saw that the army vehicle hit the Alto from the front side PW Mohammad Altaf, ASI, stated that the preliminary investigation was carried by SI Mohammad Shamim and thereafter investigation was entrusted to him. As per the statement of eye witnesses, the army vehicle bearing No.9903C06884-E, driven by Sepoy Abdul Qayoom, hit the Alto vehicle bearing registration No.JK05A-2649 at Zangam resulting in fatal injuries to Alto driver Mushtaq Ahmad Mir. As per eye witness account, I the army vehicle was coming from wrong side at a reckless speed. The injured was taken to SKIMS Soura where he succumbed to injuries on 09.07.2006. In the cross examination he has stated that within five minutes of occurrence, police reached the spot, spot map was also prepared. Another witness Mohammad Farooq has stated that Mushtaq Ahmad Mir deceased was posted as Incharge Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Pakherpora. As per entries in the service book, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.18259/. In the service book date of birth of deceased is recorded as 09.04.1960. The pay details prepared from records, signed by Executive Engineer, are correct. In the cross examination has stated that the deceased would have risen to the post of Chief Engineer being a degree holder as at the time of accident he was only 46 years old. The three witnesses produced by the appellants before the Tribunal belongs to the Army. Witness Abdul Qayoom, driver of the offending vehicle, has stated that deceased was driving his vehicle at a speed of 60/70 KMPH and was talking on a cell phone. His vehicle(army vehicle) was on left side of the road. The three witnesses produced by the appellants before the Tribunal belongs to the Army. Witness Abdul Qayoom, driver of the offending vehicle, has stated that deceased was driving his vehicle at a speed of 60/70 KMPH and was talking on a cell phone. His vehicle(army vehicle) was on left side of the road. It is Alto which collided with the army vehicle. Police reached the spot and the vehicle was seized. In his cross examination has stated that his vehicle was at the front of convoy and was moving on right side of the road. The right tyre of his vehicle smashed the frond side of the Alto which got totally damaged. Another witness Ravinder Kumar has stated that he was also in one of the vehicles of the army. While reaching Zangan Pattan, one Maruti Alto was moving on reckless speed while taking on cell phone. On spotting the speeding Alto, the army driver stopped the vehicle but Alto collided with the army vehicle. RW Subedar Sagar Chand has also stated that front vehicle of their convoy collided with the Alto car near Zangam Pattan. The Alto driver was talking on a cell phone and could not control the Alto while negotiating the curve and collided with their vehicle. Another witness Imran Khan has stated that the Alto driver talking on cell phone, driving Alto on wrong side collided with their vehicle. When he noticed the position of speeding Alto, he warned his driver who stopped the vehicle but the Alto driver could not control his vehicle and collided with their vehicle. In the cross examination has stated that he was sitting in the back of their vehicle with LMG. Sub driver, he and three other persons were sitting in their vehicle. He noticed the deceased talking on cell phone. On the question put by Tribunal, has stated that the enquiry is held against the driver. The driver Abdvil Qayoom is not driving any vehicle presently and is at Jaipur with 5th JAKLI. He does not known as to whether the driver is discharging his duties as per routine or not or is attached. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants firstly projected that the evidence was not properly appreciated. It is the Alto driver deceased who was negligent, for his negligence the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation. 3. He does not known as to whether the driver is discharging his duties as per routine or not or is attached. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants firstly projected that the evidence was not properly appreciated. It is the Alto driver deceased who was negligent, for his negligence the appellants are not liable to pay any compensation. 3. This submission is without any substance because learned Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, has taken the correct view. The witnesses as produced by the claimants were natural witnesses to the occurrence, more particularly witness No.1 and 2 per chance were moving in Sumo vehicle when they noticed the accident. They have given true account as to how the accident took place. They have qualified in their statements that the army vehicle was moving at a very high speed and the front vehicle of the convoy did hit the Alto. Their depositions are not impeached. Furthermore, the witness Mohammad Altaf ASI has qualified that during the investigation of the case as registered in Police Station, Pattan, it was established that the army vehicle was at very high speed and it is the driver of army vehicle who has given rise to the accident and it is in the backdrop of the material collected by the investigating agency, driver of the army vehicle has been held responsible and a case has been lodged against him. As compared to statements of claimants, three witnesses produced by appellants which include driver of the offending vehicle do not appear to be probable. All the three witnesses being army personnel, though they were present on spot but their statements are to be scrutinized with great care even for the purposes of probable value. Witness Abdul Qayoom, driver of the offending vehicle, has deposed that his vehicle was moving on right side of the road whereas another witness Ravinder Kumar has stated that on seeing speeding Alto vehicle the driver stopped the vehicle. Then their another witness Subedar Sagar Chand has stated that the Alto driver was coming from opposite direction, while negotiating the curve the Alto collided with their vehicle. 4. Now which version is correct and who among the three is to be believed. One says vehicle was moving, another says vehicle was stopped and another says that while negotiating curve the Alto driver lost control and collided with army vehicle. 4. Now which version is correct and who among the three is to be believed. One says vehicle was moving, another says vehicle was stopped and another says that while negotiating curve the Alto driver lost control and collided with army vehicle. In the aforesaid background, the finding recorded by learned Tribunal vis-a-vis issue No.1 and 2 is found to be correct on proper appreciation of the evidence. 5. Coming to issue No.3, the position of respondents-claimants being the legal representatives and the dependent members of the deceased, is not controverted, therefore, finding on issue No.3 does not call for any interference. 6. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.29,06,700/. The position of the deceased as Assistant Executive Engineer and then his last drawn pay amounting to Rs.18,259/is fully established. Learned Tribunal while applying the law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court 1996 ACJ 581 and Smt. Sarla Verma & ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , has taken into account future prospectus of promotion plus monthly income of the deceased. While deducting Rs.300/from Rs.18,259/on account of income tax, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.17,959/and same has been doubled in view of future prospectus, so the income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.53,877. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, 30% has to be added to the salary in respect of future prospectus which position is also admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. It is contended that the pay of the deceased has to be taken such as would be permissible in terms of 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006. Occurrence is of the year 2006,6th Pay Commission has been subsequently implemented, therefore, same, in view of ratio of Sarla Verma's judgment, is not permissible, thus income of the deceased would be: 17,759+30% = 23,086. 1/3rd has to be deducted which the deceased would incur on his personal expenses, therefore, dependency value of the income would be: 23,086-7695 = 15391. Applying the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency would be: 15391x12 = 184692x13 = 24,00996. 9. The Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/as loss of estate which, in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case, shall be only Rs.5000/. Applying the multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency would be: 15391x12 = 184692x13 = 24,00996. 9. The Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/as loss of estate which, in view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's case, shall be only Rs.5000/. Further consortium allowable in favour of the widow is to the extent of Rs.10,000/but in the present case there are two widows, therefore, Rs.10,000/each shall be granted to both the widows as consortium. On the count of love and affection, Rs.30,000/have been awarded in favour of children of the deceased which is not permissible because the amount of compensation as awarded takes care of that situation as well. Further on account of funeral expenses, Rs.5000/have been awarded which, as per schedule, has to be restricted to Rs.2000/. Hence in total the dependents-respondents are entitled to the following amount: 24,00996+5000+20,000+2000 = 24,27,996. The compensation shall neither be windfall nor pittance. The compensation as worked out is just and appropriate. 10. In view of facts and circumstances and the position elaborated hereinabove, appeal succeeds only to the extent of quantum of compensation as indicated hereinabove. The respondents (claimants) shall be entitled to the amount of Rs. 24,27,996/and to the interest @ 6% from the date of institution of petitioner till realization. The amount of consortium will go to two widows equally, whereas rest of awarded amount shall be shared by the respondents in accordance with the shares permissible under Personal Law as applicable. 11 The amount as awarded by the Tribunal is stated to have been deposited along with interest. Same shall be released in the manner indicating in the impugned award. Excess amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the appellants. 12. Cross appeal was required to be filed within one month from the date of institution of the appeal but has been filed on 12.01.2011, i.e. after one month, no COD application has been filed, hence same is dismissed as barred by time. 13. Subordinate record along with copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for information.