ORDER D.H. WAGHELA, J. 1. The appeal was heard at the admission stage and due to lack of necessary material with learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, hearing was adjourned for allowing him the time to collect necessary instructions and papers for full-fledge arguments in the appeal. In the meantime, respondents in the appeal have filed their cross objection, and the contesting respondent having appeared, the appeal and cross objection are, by consent, taken up for final hearing and disposal. For the sake of convenience, the appellant-insurance company is addressed as appellant herein and the respondent-claimants in the appeal are addressed as the claimants. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the claimants had claimed compensation of Rs.46.4 Lacs on account of death of Shri Bharatbhai B. Gohil, who died in the accident which took place on 26.5.2006 on account of collision of his car with a stationary truck on the highway near Dhrol, District-Jamnagar. The accident happened at around 8.15 p.m. Complaint in respect of the accident was registered and charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177 and 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been submitted against driver of the truck. 3. The deceased victim of the accident was a medical officer, aged 51 years, drawing monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. During the course of trial before the tribunal, the opponents did not examine the driver of the truck. The claimants pleaded that income of the deceased would have increased to Rs.60,000/- per month and in view of his age and profession, multiplier of 15 was required to be applied. However, ignoring the future prospect, applying multiplier of 11 in terms of the law laid down in the case of Sarla Varma v. DTC [ AIR 2009 SC 3104 ], and assessing yearly dependency of the claimants at Rs.3,20,000/- per year, the tribunal awarded in all a sum of Rs.35,60,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum and directed, by the impugned order dated 30.11.2011, to pay total amount within eight weeks. 4. 4. After an application for condonation of delay, which was granted, and payment of nearly Rs.35,000/- for Court fees, all that was argued for the appellant was that the tribunal had failed to consider the income tax which was required to be deducted from the gross income of the deceased and that the tribunal had not considered the plea of contributory negligence of driver of the vehicle in which the victim was travelling, insofar as the Maruti car had dashed with a stationary truck on the left hand side of the road. Learned counsel, Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, appearing for the appellant relied upon recent decision of the Apex Court in Shayamwati Sharma and Others v. Karam Singh and Others [ (2010) 12 SCC 378 ] to submit that when income of the deceased was above the range which was exempt from tax, appropriate deduction has to be made in respect of the tax liability. Learned counsel relied upon Form No.16-A at Exh.83 which is a certificate of deduction of tax at source in respect of income of the deceased from May 2005 to March 2006 and it showed deduction of income tax to the tune of Rs.21,420/- from the gross salary of Rs.30,000/- upto September 2005 and Rs.40,000/- for the remaining period of the year. It was, however, conceded that there was no evidence and not even a question asked in the cross examination of the claimants about actual tax liability borne by the deceased after other permissible deductions and legal tax planning. Learned counsel Mr.Mehta also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Raj Rani and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others [ (2009) 13 SCC 654 ] in support of the submission that some amount of negligence on the part of deceased could not be ruled out and at least 10% of contributory negligence was required to be attributed to the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was travelling. 5. Learned counsel, Ms.Kiran Joshi, appearing for the claimants submitted that in view of recent judgment of the Apex Court in K.R.Madhusudan and Others v. Administrative Officer and Another [ AIR 2011 SC 979 ] future prospect of increase in the income of the victim, who was a qualified and senior doctor, ought to have been considered by the tribunal for enhancement of amount of compensation. In that case, the Apex Court found that the judgment of the High Court deserved to be set aside for being perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record for not having considered future prospect of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method. In the facts of that case, the deceased was aged 52 at the time of his death, had six years of service left, and would have obtained gross salary of Rs.20,000/- per month, even as every five years revision of pay was compulsory. Making that future salary the base, the Apex Court deducted therefrom 1/3rd amount for personal expenses and the loss of notional income was taken to be Rs.1,60,000/- to which multiplier of 11 was applied. The Apex Court also awarded Rs.10,000/- for funeral and transport expenses, Rs.6,000/- for medical expenses prior to death and Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection. 6. In the facts of the present case, the tribunal has restricted the award of compensation to Rs.35,60,000/-, as aforesaid, after addition to the dependency benefit, of Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. 7. It is clear from the evidence recorded before the tribunal and placed before this Court that cause of accident was parking on the highway of the truck without any reflectors or light and indicators during night hours. It is common place that all the vehicles and particularly cars are plied at high speed on the wider highways and the traffic is increasing by the day. Therefore, even without any specific evidence in that regard, it could be assumed that vehicles on both sides of the road would be plying at high speed and the vehicles approaching from opposite side with their headlights on would not allow the driver of any vehicle to see anything on his side of the road on account of being dazzled by the lights. There cannot be a presumption that driver of any vehicle would be so negligent as to dash into the back of another vehicle to commit a fatal accident inspite of seeing any obstruction on the left side of the road. Therefore, it is very difficult to attribute any negligence on the part of the driver dashing his vehicle into a parked vehicle. Therefore, it is very difficult to attribute any negligence on the part of the driver dashing his vehicle into a parked vehicle. In the facts of the present case, the car was driven by brother of the deceased and he is not stated to have been seriously hurt, which leads to the inference that the driver would have tried to take a turn at the last moment after seeing the stationary truck standing ahead in the dark. The panchnama of the scene of incident hardly sheds any clear light on the position of the vehicles at the site of the road. The provisions with regard to proper parking are codified in Chapter VIII of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but more often they are observed in their violation. This Court (Coram:M.B.Shah, J. as His Lordship then was), after detailed discussion of the circumstances on road in Saudagarsing Chhajusing and Others v. Jashodaben and Another [1986 ACJ 1070] has held as under: “7. With regard to the first submission, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal has discussed this aspect in detail. He has taken into consideration the panchnama, Exh.28. The panchnama clearly shows that there was no reflector or any device at the back of the trailer which would make the existence of the parked trailer on the road visible to the driver of any vehicle arriving from the southern side in the darkness of early morning. Only one red cloth was kept tied to a rod in the right back of the trailer. The truck trailer which was parked on the road was a huge vehicle of width of 8 ½ feet and length of 72 ½ feet. The battery wires of the truck were hanging loose which would mean that the lights of the vehicle could not have been kept on. It is also an admitted fact that the right front tyre of the truck was in burst condition. ................. .... It is an undisputed fact that Ranjitsinh was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle. It is also an admitted fact that the right front tyre of the truck was in burst condition. ................. .... It is an undisputed fact that Ranjitsinh was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle. It is his say that the motor cycle was driven at a low speed and when they reached near the place of incident, one truck was seen arriving from Ahmedabad side in the left half portion of the road and the headlights of that oncoming truck were fully on with the result that he and Gemalsing were dazzled by the lights and the motor cycle dashed with the stationary truck trailer. ..................... 8. ............. 9. From the above discussion it is proved that at dark night time on a national highway where there was no other light and which was open to fast moving traffic the truck and trailer of 72 ½ feet length and 8 ½ feet width was parked without any parking light and with no reflectors and due to that the accident had occurred. Even assuming that the motor-cyclist was driving his vehicle slightly fast, yet it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on his part because on a national highway and that too at night time it cannot be expected that the vehicle should be driven at a slow speed. Further it cannot be expected that the driver of a vehicle should visualize that there might be some stationary vehicle which could not be seen from a distance of few paces and therefore he should drive the vehicle slowly. Under section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act it is provided that no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or to be likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the road. ......................” 8. As for the amount of compensation, the tribunal appears to have not considered future prospect of deceased in view of the then prevailing law laid down in Sarla Varma (Supra) and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in K.R.Madhusudan and Others (Supra) being not available. ......................” 8. As for the amount of compensation, the tribunal appears to have not considered future prospect of deceased in view of the then prevailing law laid down in Sarla Varma (Supra) and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in K.R.Madhusudan and Others (Supra) being not available. However, in view of the fact that total gross income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.4,80,000/- and deduction towards income tax, required to be paid by the deceased even after proper tax planning was not considered, it appears to be reasonable to accept yearly dependency at Rs.3,20,000/- per year. There is no controversy about application of multiplier. However, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium is apparently unjust and does not appear to be reasonable amount to be awarded to the young son and widow of the deceased for loss of head of their family. 9. Another disturbing fact, which has emerged upon hearing of the appeal is that not a single rupee has been so far paid by the appellant to any of the claimants and in defence of such attitude it was argued by learned counsel, Mr.Mehta, that the claimants were earning interest at the rate of 7% on the amount of compensation. It was submitted by learned counsel, Ms.Joshi, that the appeal was filed and moved in the High Court only after execution proceedings were filed by the claimants. It was also submitted by her that even if admitted liability of the insurance company were respected, the claimants would have started earning at least interest at the rate of 8.5% in fixed deposits and more return by investing the amount more wisely. It also transpired during the course of hearing that the appeal has been filed without any application of mind and it was repeatedly requested by learned counsel, Mr.Mehta, in reply to several queries that the Court may call for Record and Proceedings and find out the evidence on record. Such practice of filing appeals without perusal of record and proceeding for admission, without referring to any material on record, throwing the burden of calling for and reading evidence on the Court results into unnecessary admission of appeals and mounting of arrears to the detriment of both the aggrieved and bereaved parties. It was under such circumstances that admission hearing was adjourned to facilitate collection of necessary material and evidence by learned counsel. It was under such circumstances that admission hearing was adjourned to facilitate collection of necessary material and evidence by learned counsel. First Appeals may not always be admitted as a matter of right or course and they could as well be dismissed or decided at the threshold if proper assistance is extended. Therefore, the minimum that could be expected of an advocate arguing an appeal for admission is that he should be able to reply to the natural and necessary queries in respect of material relied upon by him in support of his own arguments. Unfortunately, the litigation like the present one appears to have been carried on as a mechanical exercise for any purpose other than properly voicing the grievance, if any, of the appellant. No plausible explanation has been tendered for withholding the amount of compensation except a late decision by the appellant to prefer an appeal from the impugned award. 10. In above facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, First Appeal No.2811 of 2012 is summarily dismissed along with Civil Application with cost quantified at Rs.15,000/- and Cross Objection No.165 of 2012 is allowed to the extent that the amount towards loss of consortium shall stand increased to Rs.25,000/- and total amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants on or before 30th November 2012 with interest at the rate of 7% upto 31st January 2012 as per the impugned award and at the rate of 9% with effect from 1st February 2012 till the date of payment. (HSS) Order accordingly.