JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad ("hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal" for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 346 of 2000 dated 26/8/2014, by which the learned tribunal has allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.44,75,000/- towards compensation under different heads for the death of deceased Rameshbhai Vasoya with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization, appellant herein - original opponent No.2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, insurer of Motor Truck involved in the accident, has preferred the present petition. 2. Facts leading to the present First Appeal, in nutshell, are as under :- 2.1. That in a vehicular accident between Maruti Car, which at the relevant time was being driven by the deceased Rameshbhai Vasoya, bearing registration No.GJ-7H-2610 and Motor Truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-V-1595, which at the relevant time was being driven by the opponent No.1, deceased Rameshbhai Vasoya died. 2.2. That at the relevant time the deceased was coming from Mumbai to Ahmedabad in a Maruti Car. The Lorry/Truck collided with the Maruti Car. That both the vehicles were coming from opposite directions. That the deceased sustained serious injuries on allover of his body and therefore, he was shifted to a hospital at Vapi. However, during the transit, he died. 2.3. The deceased, at the relevant time, was aged 35 years and running a business in the name and style of Winter Business Private Limited at Ahmedabad. 2.4. Therefore, the original claimants filed claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming Rs.50 Lacs towards compensation under different heads. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident was sole negligent for the accident. It was the case on behalf of the or claimants that the driver of the lorry/truck was rash and negligent and while taking turn on the curve, he was in a great speed and he went on the wrong side by one feet from the middle of the road and dashed with the Maruti Car. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the lorry/truck involved in the accident was 100% negligent. 2.5. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the lorry/truck involved in the accident was 100% negligent. 2.5. On quantum, it was the case on behalf of the claimants that the deceased, at the time of accident, was aged 35 years, was a businessman and was earning an amount of Rs.4 Lacs per annum and was also getting insurance premium commission from Winter Business Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the original claimants claimed Rs.50 Lacs towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 2.6. That the claim petition was opposed by the appellant - original opponent No.2 - Insurance Company by filing Written Statement at Ex.16. The appellant - Insurance Company denied all the averments and allegations made in the claim petition including the negligence on the part of the driver of the motor truck. It was alternatively submitted that the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car may be fixed to a greater extent. The Insurance Company also denied the income of he deceased at Rs.4 Lacs per annum, as contended on behalf of the claimants. 2.7. That the learned tribunal framed the issues at Ex.33. 2.8. That the claimants lead the following evidence, oral as well as documentary :- Oral Evidence Sr. No. Particulars Ex. No. 1. Deposition of original claimant No.1. 37 2. Witness. 44 Documentary Evidence Sr. No. Particulars Ex. No. 1. Police complaint 59 2. Panchnama 60 3. Inquest Panchnama 61 4. Postmortem Report 38 2.9. That on appreciation of evidence, more particularly considering Panchnama of place of accident and other evidence and in absence of original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident being examined and/or stepped into witness box, and by drawing adverse inference the learned tribunal has held the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident 100% negligent. 2.10. That on quantum, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.44,75,000/- under different heads as under :- Sr. No. Head Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 40,50,000.00 2. Loss of consortium 01,00,000.00 3. Loss of love and affection 01,00,000.00 4. Funeral expenses 00,25,000.00 Total compensation 44,75,000.00 2.11. 2.10. That on quantum, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.44,75,000/- under different heads as under :- Sr. No. Head Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 40,50,000.00 2. Loss of consortium 01,00,000.00 3. Loss of love and affection 01,00,000.00 4. Funeral expenses 00,25,000.00 Total compensation 44,75,000.00 2.11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal awarding total sum of Rs.44,75,000/- to the original claimants towards compensation for the death of deceased Rameshbhai Vasoya, appellant herein - original opponent No.2 - Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal. 3. Mr. M.J. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident sole/100% negligent. It is further submitted that considering the fact that there was head-on collision, the learned tribunal ought to have held the driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident equal responsible/negligent for the accident. 3.1. Mr.Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.40,50,000/- under the head of loss of dependency by assessing loss of dependency at Rs.22,500/- per month. 3.2. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted that adding 50% towards future rise in income and after deducting ¼th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency at the most could have been considered at Rs.16,875/- per month and applying multiplier of 15, the original claimants shall be entailed to Rs.30,37,500/- under the head of future economic loss/loss of dependency. 3.3. Mr.Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted that the accident took place in the year 1999 and therefore, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.1 Lac towards loss of consortium; Rs.1 Lac towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is submitted that at the most the claimants can be awarded Rs.1 Lac in all under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss to the estate. 3.4. It is submitted that at the most the claimants can be awarded Rs.1 Lac in all under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss to the estate. 3.4. Mr.Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses without any cogent evidence on record. It is submitted that at the most the original claimants may be awarded Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent. 4. Present appeal is opposed by Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. He has submitted that the in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned tribunal has not committed any error in holding the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident sole negligent for the accident. it is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned tribunal holding the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident, is on appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. It is further submitted that cogent reasons have been given by the learned tribunal in para 13 of the judgment and award while holding the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident sole negligent. It is submitted that as such the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck, who can be said to be the best eye witness, has remained absent and he has not stepped into the witness box to explain the manner in which the accident took place and therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference against the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident. 4.1. 4.1. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.40,50,000/- under the head of loss of dependency and/or future economic loss assessing/determining the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.20,000/- per month is concerned, Mr.Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has stated at the bar to consider the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and consequently award the loss of dependency accordingly. 4.2. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.1 Lac under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses is concerned, Mr.Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has requested to award reasonable amount under the aforesaid heads. However, has requested that the original claimants shall be entitled to at least Rs.1 Lac in all, towards the loss of consortium etc and Rs.10,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and we have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal and we have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence the learned tribunal has held the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident. On considering the reasoning given by the learned tribunal while holding the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident 100% negligent, in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 and considering the panchnama of the place of accident and the manner in which the accident has taken place, we are of the opinion that the learned tribunal has not committed any error in holding the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident sole/100% negligent. The findings recorded by the learned tribunal are on appreciation of evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Cogent reasons have been given by the learned tribunal on the aspect of negligence. In paragraph Nos.13 and 14, the learned tribunal has observed and held as under :- "13. The findings recorded by the learned tribunal are on appreciation of evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Cogent reasons have been given by the learned tribunal on the aspect of negligence. In paragraph Nos.13 and 14, the learned tribunal has observed and held as under :- "13. It is pertinent to note that one of the offending vehicle is a Maruti Car which was coming from Mumbai towards Surat and the other was Lorry/Truck which was going towards Mumbai. The accident in question occurred on Ahmedabad Mumbai National Highway. Generally when drivers of the vehicles had to negotiate a slope on any Highway road, they have to be more careful inasmuch as being a highway the vehicle which may be coming on the opposite side might also come at a great speed. As seen herein above, at a distance of about 50 ft. from the place of the accident, there is a curve. Therefore, the vehicles coming from the opposite direction may escape the attention of the driver of the vehicle of the other side who is taking a turn. In such case, while negotiating a curve and that too on a National Highway, the driver should be careful enough that he keeps the vehicle at such a moderate speed that in any such eventuality, he could get the vehicle in his control and come to a standstill. Thus, in my opinion, had the driver - opponent No.1 of the truck being a heavy vehicle been careful enough in driving the rickshaw at a moderate sped, he could have easily avoided the accident. However, it is shown in the panchnama that for a distance of about 15 ft. towards the Western side of the road, there were tyre marks meaning thereby the driver of the truck could not stop his vehicle immediately since he appears to have been at a greater speed and it is therefore that the truck, after applying the brake, could come to an halt only after dragging through 15 ft. This clearly shows that the driver of the offending truck the opponent No.1 was totally rash and negligent in driving the said offending vehicle because of such the opponent No.1 did not have control over the same and it collided with the Maruti Car of the deceased Rameshbhai and thereby caused the death of deceased Rameshbhai Vasoya. This clearly shows that the driver of the offending truck the opponent No.1 was totally rash and negligent in driving the said offending vehicle because of such the opponent No.1 did not have control over the same and it collided with the Maruti Car of the deceased Rameshbhai and thereby caused the death of deceased Rameshbhai Vasoya. In my opinion therefore, the accident in question has occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle the opponent No.1 herein. 14. It is pertinent to note that the opponent No.2 Insurance Company filed its written statement vie Exh.16 and denied the occurrence of the accident. It has also denied the date time and occurrence of the alleged accident. However, from the discussion made hereinbefore, the petitioners have not only amply proved the occurrence of th accident, but also proved the involvement of the offending vehicle being Lorry/Truck bearing Registration No.GJ-IV-1596 in the alleged accident. It therefore goes without saying that the petitioners have duly proved that the deceased Rameshbhai Muljibhai Vasoya died due to the injuries sustained in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In the circumstances, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative." 5.2. Considering the aforesaid and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned tribunal and we hereby confirm the finding recorded the learned tribunal holding the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident 100% negligent. At this stage it is required to be noted that the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck, who can be said to be the best eye witness and who could have explained the manner in which the accident took place, had chosen to remain absent and had neither contested the claim petition nor even stepped into witness box to explain the circumstances under which the accident took place and therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference. Even otherwise, considering the evidence on record, more particularly Panchnama of the place of accident, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the original opponent No.1 - driver of the motor truck involved in the accident sole negligent and we confirm the finding recorded by the learned tribunal holding the driver of the motor truck sole negligent for the accident. 5.3. Now, so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal, it appears that the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.40,50,000/- under the head of loss of dependency/future loss of income. That while awarding Rs.40,50,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, the learned tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.20,000/- per month. The aforesaid is challenged by the appellant - Insurance Company. There is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the deceased at the time of accident can be considered/assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month. 5.4. In view of the aforesaid broad consensus between the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties, income of the deceased at the time of accident is considered at Rs.15,000/- per month and further adding 50% of the aforesaid towards future rise in income, the prospective income would come to Rs.22,500/- per month. Deducting ¼th towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.5625/- per month/- loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,875/- per month. Looking to the age of the deceased at the time of accident/death, multiplier of 15 is required to be applied and therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.30,37,500/- under the head of future economic loss/loss of dependency instead of Rs.40,50,000/- as awarded by the learned tribunal. 5.5. Considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 1999, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.1 Lac towards consortium and loss of love and affection. Considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, we are of the opinion that the original claimants may be awarded in all Rs.1 Lac towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, we are of the opinion that the original claimants may be awarded in all Rs.1 Lac towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.31,42,500/- in all towards compensation under different heads for the death of the deceased Rameshbhai Vasoya with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, from all the original opponents including the appellant herein - Insurance Company. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 346 of 2000 dated 26/8/2014, is hereby modified to the extent that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.31,42,500/- in all towards compensation under different heads for the death of the deceased Ramesh Vasoya with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, from all the original opponents including the appellant herein - Insurance Company. Now, the appellant herein - Insurance Company to deposit the entire amount of compensation as determined herein above in the present appeal, with the learned tribunal within a period of six weeks from today, if not deposited so far, and on such deposit, the learned tribunal to pass appropriate order of disbursement and investment considering the interest of the original claimants. Present First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In view of disposal of the main First Appeal, no order in the Civil Application and the same stands disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.