JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. All these (appeals arise out) of the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal and arising out of the same accident but with respect to different claimants, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and award. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010, by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- to the original claimants towards compensation under different heads for the death of deceased Tusharbhai Natvarsinh Gadhavi-original opponent No. 3, New India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present First Appeal No. 880 of 2016. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011 by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petitions and has awarded Rs. 5 Lacs in each of the claim petitions towards compensation for the death of two minors who died in the vehicular accident, original opponent No. 3-the New India Insurance Company Limited has preferred First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016. 4. It is not in dispute that in the vehicular accident which occurred on 29/9/2010, deceased Tusharbhai died. In the said accident two minors, son Keyur and daughter Keny, aged 13 years also died. Therefore, widow and parents of deceased Tusharbhai filed the aforesaid Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 before the learned tribunal claiming Rs. 35 Lacs towards compensation for the death of deceased Tusharbhai. 5. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000 per month and after deducting 1/4thtowards personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter applying multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,75,000/- towards loss of dependency. That the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- under the conventional heads and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by the impugned judgment and award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- towards loss of dependency. That the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- under the conventional heads and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by the impugned judgment and award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,10,000 towards compensation for the death of deceased Tusharbhai with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 awarding Rs. 8,10,000 in all to the original claimants, towards compensation for the death of deceased Tusharbhai, Insurance company has preferred First Appeal No. 880 of 2016. 7. That for the death of two minors namely son Keyur and daughter Keny, who at the relevant time were aged about 13 years, mother and grand-parents preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 77 and 78 of 2011. Assessing the prospective income of the deceased minors at Rs. 2500/- per month and thereafter applying multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,50,000/- under the head of loss of dependency in each case and has awarded a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. Thus, in both the aforesaid claim petitions, the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs in each of the claim petitions towards compensation for the death of two minors namely son Keyur and daughter Keny, aged 13 years. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011, Insurance Company has preferred First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016. 9. First Appeal No. 881 of 2016:- Now, so far as First Appeal No. 880 of 2016 arising out of the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 is concerned, Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding that vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-5-AT-3008 was involved in the accident. It is submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. It is submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-5-AT-3008 was sole negligent for the accident. 10. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased while awarding future loss of income/loss of dependency. It is submitted that as number of claimants were three, the learned tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 11. Making above submissions, it requested to allow present First Appeal No. 880 of 2016 to the aforesaid extent and modify the judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 accordingly and to the aforesaid extent. 12. First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016:- Now, so far as First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016 arising out of the Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011 are concerned, over and above the contention on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company with respect to involvement of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 and finding recorded by the learned tribunal on negligence of the driver of the truck, involved in the accident, it is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 5 Lacs in all in each of the claim petitions for the death of two minor aged 13 years. Making above submissions it is requested to allow First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016. No other submissions have been made. 13. Both these appeals are opposed by Mr. H.M. Bhrahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the widow and mother of the deceased minors and Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parents of the deceased Tusharbhai and grandparents of the deceased minor children namely son Keyur and daughter Keny. 14. No other submissions have been made. 13. Both these appeals are opposed by Mr. H.M. Bhrahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the widow and mother of the deceased minors and Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parents of the deceased Tusharbhai and grandparents of the deceased minor children namely son Keyur and daughter Keny. 14. Both the aforesaid learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original claimants have vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by the learned tribunal with respect to involvement of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 and holding the driver of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 sole negligent for the accident, are on appreciation of evidence and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that as such FIR was filed against the driver of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 and even subsequently he was also charge-sheeted. It is submitted that the driver of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008-original opponent No. 1 did not step into the witness box disputing his involvement and/or involvement of the truck in the accident. It is submitted that therefore, the findings recorded by the learned tribunal with respect to involvement of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 and holding the driver of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 sole negligent for the accident, is not required to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 15. Now, so far as the First Appeal No. 880 of 2010 arising out of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 is concerned, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants have fairly conceded that looking to the number of claimants and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), only 1/3rd was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. However, submitted that while awarding the compensation, the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- only under the conventional heads. It is submitted that as the accent occurred in the year 2010 and even as per the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 914 of 2016 and subsequent decisions following the aforesaid decision, the original claimants shall be entitled to at least Rs. 1,50,000 under the conventional heads. It is submitted that, therefore, while considering the just compensation, the aforesaid is required to be considered. 16. 1,50,000 under the conventional heads. It is submitted that, therefore, while considering the just compensation, the aforesaid is required to be considered. 16. Now, so far as First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016 arising out of Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011 are concerned, it is submitted that as such the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal can be said to be on lower side. It is submitted that as such while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has assessed the prospective income at Rs. 2500/- per month and that too with respect to accident which occurred in the year 2010. It is submitted that therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011 is not required to be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court. 17. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the widow has submitted that the learned tribunal has erred in giving 40% share to the widow. It is submitted that the widow is as such deserted by her in-laws and she is compelled to stay at her parental house. It is submitted that therefore, as such the learned tribunal ought to have apportioned compensation between the widow and the parents/grandparents in the ratio of 50:50 i.e. 50% to the widow and 50% to the parents/grandparents of the children. 18. Mr. Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parents/grandparents has stated at the bar that as such he has no objection if the compensation is apportioned equally between the widow on one hand and grandparents on the other hand in the ratio of 50:50. 19. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 20. Now, so far as submission on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding that the driver of the truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 was involved in the accident and that the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding the original opponent No. 1-driver of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 sole negligent for the accident is concerned, the same are on appreciation of evidence on record. We are of the opinion that the learned tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the driver of the Truck NO. We are of the opinion that the learned tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the driver of the Truck NO. GJ-5-AT-3008 was involved and that the original opponent No. 1-driver of the truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 was sole negligent for the accident. The findings recorded by the learned tribunal on the aforesaid are on appreciation of evidence and same are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Considering the evidence on record and considering the fact that even FIR was lodged against the driver of the Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 and subsequently he was charge-sheeted also. It is required to be noted that even the original opponent No. 1-driver of the Truck No GJ-5-AT-3008 has not stepped into witness box and he has never disputed and/or neither he nor owner of the truck disputed that Truck No. GJ-5-AT-3008 was not involved in the accident. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned tribunal holding that the Truck in question was involved in the accident and that the original opponent No. 1-driver of the Truck was sole negligent for the accident is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 21. Now, so far as the amount of quantum awarded by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 is concerned, it is required to be noted that the impugned judgment and award is assailed solely on the ground that the learned tribunal has materially erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is not in dispute that number of claimants are three, namely widow and parents of the deceased Tusharbhai. Under the circumstances, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) only 1/3rd was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased while awarding future loss of income. 22. The learned tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15. Assessing and determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- per month and thereafter after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 15, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 22. The learned tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 15. Assessing and determining the income of the deceased at Rs. 5000/- per month and thereafter after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 15, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 6,00,300/- under the future loss of income/loss of dependency, as the accident occurred in the year 2010, asper the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 914 of 2016 and subsequent decisions, original claimants shall be entitled Rs. 1,50,000/- under the conventional heads. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 7,60,300/- in all towards compensation for the death of deceased Tusharbhai with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 is required to be modified and First Appeal No. 880 of 2016 is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 23. Now, so far as the First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016 arising out of the Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011 awarding total sum of Rs. 5 Lacs towards compensation for the death of two minors aged 13 years is concerned, it is required to be noted that while awarding loss of dependency, the learned tribunal has considered the future loss of income considering the income at Rs. 2500/- per month only. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in the aforesaid claim petitions cannot be said to be exorbitant and/or on higher side, which calls for interference of this Court. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal can be said to be “just compensation” and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011 is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 24. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal can be said to be “just compensation” and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 77 and 78 of 2011 is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 24. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No. 880 of 2016 is hereby partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 720 of 2010 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 7,60,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 25. For the reasons stated above, First Appeal Nos. 881 and 882 of 2016 arising out of Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 78 and 77 of 2011, respectively are hereby dismissed. 26. However, it is observed and held with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the amount of compensation awarded in the respective claim petitions/present First Appeals shall be apportioned equally between the widow on one hand and parents/grandparents on the other hand in the ratio of 50:50, meaning thereby the widow shall get 50% of the amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest and on the other hand parents/grandparents shall get 50% of the amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest. 27. In view of disposal of the main First Appeals, respective Civil Applications stand disposed of. 28. Now, the original opponent No. 3-The New India Insurance Company Limited to deposit the amount of compensation as per the present order with the learned tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, the amount of compensation be paid to the respective claimants as stated above and directions with respect to the investment and disbursement as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal be followed, however, with aforesaid modification of apportionment. 29. Registry is directed to return Record and Proceedings of the case to the learned tribunal.