JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Presiding Officer, 8th Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 562/1996, wherein and whereby; the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding a total sum of Rs. 6,29,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization with cost of the claim, the original claimants have preferred the present first appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under. 3. That on 1st December 1996, the deceased Amanjibhai Hajibhai Sherasiya while returning to Morbi on a motorcycle (scooter) bearing registration No. GJ-3F-8589 met with an accident with a chhakdo rickshaw (goods) bearing registration No. GJ-3U-9466 coming from the opposite side. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and ultimately died during the treatment. 4. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence produced before it, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,29,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization with cost of the claim to the original claimants. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth appearing on behalf of the appellants-original claimants has challenged the award of the Tribunal mainly on three grounds. Firstly, on the ground of disproportionate contributory negligence; secondly, incorrect assessment of actual income and future prospective income; and lastly, on the amount awarded on conventional heads being on the lower side. 6. So far as the first contention about contributory negligence is concerned, he has submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in fastening the contributory negligence of the deceased at 40% and that of the rickshaw driver at 60%. He has submitted that the rickshaw driver had fled from the incident and was not examined as a witness. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the panchnama drawn at the place of the incident. He has submitted that the rickshaw driver had fled from the incident and was not examined as a witness. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the panchnama drawn at the place of the incident. He has stated that the rickshaw driver was coming in the wrong direction, whereas, looking to the position of the motorcycle (scooter) at the time of the accident, it can be inferred that the same was on the extreme right side on the edge of the road. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement made by the rickshaw driver before the police authority, wherein a specific statement was made by the rickshaw driver that after the accident, he fled away with the rickshaw. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred by placing reliance on the statement given by the rickshaw driver before the police authorities, in which he has stated that the handle of the motorcycle (scooter) dashed with his chhakdo rickshaw and the same got entangled with the rickshaw. He has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in drawing the conclusion that both the drivers of the vehicles were coming at an excessive speed as no brake was applied by any of them without there being any cogent evidence to that effect. Placing reliance on the judgments rendered in the case of Meera Devi and Another vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 511 and Syed Sadiq and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 , it is contended by the learned advocate Mr.Sheth that to prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence, hence, the fixation of contributory negligence at 60% : 40% by the Tribunal is erroneous. 7. So far as the second ground of challenge pertaining to fixation of the prospective income is concerned, he has stated that the Tribunal has materially erred in considering the future prospective income of the deceased @ Rs. 10,750/- per month by fixing the monthly income at Rs. 6,500/-. He has submitted that the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of the accident. He was serving as doctor in the veterinary department of the State Government drawing salary of Rs. 11,647/- per month and at the time of retirement i.e. in 2005, his salary would have been Rs. 6,500/-. He has submitted that the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of the accident. He was serving as doctor in the veterinary department of the State Government drawing salary of Rs. 11,647/- per month and at the time of retirement i.e. in 2005, his salary would have been Rs. 29,716/- per month, as stated by the witness Dr. Damjibhai Lovjibhai Ajudiya, Assistant Director (Veterinary) (at Exh.49). He has submitted that the revision of pay was granted to the deceased posthumously. In view the said aspect, he has further submitted that the Tribunal should have granted 100% rise in the prospective income as the deceased was still having nine years of service. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar vs. National Insurance Company, (2014) 15 SCC 72, Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishor Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 , Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Sinh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Sri. K.R. Madhusudan vs. Administrator Officers, (2011) 4 SCC 689 . 8. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth has further submitted that while calculating the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has incorrectly considered the deduction of Rs. 5,140/- per month from the salary of the deceased. He has stated that looking to the various heads of his salary, only Rs. 400/- per month towards Income Tax is required to be deducted. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma vs. Bachitar Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 425 . Thus, as per his calculation towards deduction, he has submitted that an amount of Rs. 400/- per month if deducted, the monthly income of the deceased will come at Rs. 11,247/-. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth has contended that so far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards the conventional heads is concerned, the same are on the lower side and are liable to be enhanced as per the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Jiju Kuruvila vs. Kunjujamma Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 166 , Anjani Singh and Others vs. Salauddin and Others, (2014) 6 SCALE 55 and in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra). 10. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. 10. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Oriental Insurance Company Limited has submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal does not require interference as the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is “just compensation.” To strengthen her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumar vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions she has contended that looking at the age of the deceased at the time accident i.e. 49 years, only 30% rise can be granted towards the prospective income as the deceased was granted both revision of pay and promotion. She has also stated that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the income which the deceased would have derived at the time of his retirement should not be considered for computation of prospective income. She has stated that towards the conventional heads the original claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- only as the accident is of 1996. 11. In response to the aforesaid submissions, Learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth appearing on behalf of the appellants has stated that the case of the claimants will fall under the category of “exceptional circumstances” and the same will be governed by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sri. K.R. Madhusudan (supra) as the exact details of the income of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal. Thus, the appellants would be entitled to rise of 100% towards prospective income. 12. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 13. In the present case, the undisputed fact is that the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of the accident and his income was Rs. 11,674/- per month. He was serving as Doctor in the Veterinary Department of the State Government. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the criteria of multiplier and fixed the same to ensure uniformity and consistency while awarding the compensation in motor accident claims made under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11,674/- per month. He was serving as Doctor in the Veterinary Department of the State Government. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the criteria of multiplier and fixed the same to ensure uniformity and consistency while awarding the compensation in motor accident claims made under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter, in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) the Supreme Court had an occasion to reconsider the aforesaid issue, and the method of multipliers determined in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) was approved. It was observed that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years, and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years, and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. In the present case the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of accident, hence, an addition of 30% rise in actual salary is required to be awarded. In our considered opinion, the present case will not fall in “exceptional circumstances” as contended by the Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth since the deceased had received the benefits of pay revision and promotion, and he had only nine years of service left. It is also not the case of the claimants that the deceased would have received further benefits of pay revision or promotion. 14. Now, so far as the reliance placed by the learned Advocate Mr. Sheth on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra), in support of his submission to add 100% while considering the future rise in income is concerned, it deserves to be noted that in the case before the Apex Court the deceased was aged 28 years and 7 months old at the time of death, even in normal course he would have served the State Government minimum for 30 years, and his pay would have doubled till the date of retirement. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court thought it fit to grant 100% increase in the future income of the deceased. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court thought it fit to grant 100% increase in the future income of the deceased. In the present case, as observed above, the deceased was 49 years of age and had only 9 years of service left till his retirement. 15. So far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri. K.R. Madhusudhan (Supra) by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the deceased was above 50 years of age and considering the policy of the Board on pay revision, every five years, there would have been increase in the salary. In the present case, the deceased was already granted benefit of pay revision and promotion. The decision relied in the case of Ramilaben Chinubhai Parmar (supra), by the learned Advocate for the appellants will also not come to the rescue of the Appellants as in the said case the prospective income is computed by the Apex Court in wake of availability of benefits of promotion and hike in pay and emoluments, which are not lacking in the present case. 16. For the foregoing reasons and in our considered opinion, the present case will not fall in “exceptional circumstances” as the deceased had already received the benefits of pay revision and promotion. The mere availability of exact details of salary/income cannot place the claim under “exceptional circumstances.” Reliance placed on the statement of the witness Dr. Damjibhai Lovjibhai Ajudiya, Assistant Director (Veterinary) (at Exh.49) for assessing the income of the deceased at the time of retirement is liable to be shelved in view of his cross-examination. In the cross-examination he has specifically stated that he is unable to do the calculation of income of the deceased as it does not come under his duty. Thus, the prospective rise of income is required to be computed at 30%. 17. Apropos the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellants about the irrational deduction of Rs. 5,140/- per month from the salary of the deceased is concerned, we find merit in the same. Thus, the prospective rise of income is required to be computed at 30%. 17. Apropos the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellants about the irrational deduction of Rs. 5,140/- per month from the salary of the deceased is concerned, we find merit in the same. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Sharma (supra) lays down the details of various heads on which the income is required to be computed. We have perused the salary-slip of the deceased. As per the salary-slip an amount of Rs. 400/- per month was deducted towards the Income Tax. Learned Counsel Ms. Karuna Rahevar, in her all fairness, conceded that an amount of GPF is wrongly deducted by the Tribunal from the salary of the deceased. Thus, after deduction of an amount of Rs. 400/- from the monthly income of deceased the same will come at Rs. 11,247/-. So far as the assessment of the contributory negligence to the extent of 40% by the Tribunal is concerned, the same cannot be said to be justified in absence of examination of the rickshaw driver by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has erred by solely relying on the statement made by the rickshaw driver before the police authorities. The Tribunal has also erred in coming to the conclusion that both the drivers were negligent as they were driving with the excessive speed. The same is not proved by leading any evidence. As per panchnama the motorcycle (scooter) was lying in the right direction on the edge of the road which was 22 feet broad. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal towards the contributory negligence are not in consonance with the panchnama. The panchnama clearly indicates that the deceased was on the right side of the road. The rickshaw driver, who can be said to be the best witness to explain the manner in which the accident had taken place, has not stepped into the witness box. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. The statement made by him before the police authority that he had fled away with the rickshaw is contrary to panchnama which shows presence of rickshaw at the place of incident. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. The statement made by him before the police authority that he had fled away with the rickshaw is contrary to panchnama which shows presence of rickshaw at the place of incident. On the analysis of the award of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the contributory negligence qua the deceased is not based upon any cogent or specific evidence. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the contributory negligence. In our opinion, it can be said that the contributory negligence of the rickshaw driver is liable to be assessed at 100%. 18. So far as the claim towards conventional heads is concerned, we find that the same is on the lower side or can be said to be meager keeping in mind the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the original claimants in the cases of Jiju Kuruvila (supra) and Anjani Singh and Others (supra). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards love and affection, whereas Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. In our opinion, the same being on the lower side deserves to be enhanced. The appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. 19. Summarizing the aforesaid observations, we are of the opinion that considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,247/- per month (after deduction of Rs. 400/-) with 30% prospective rise, the same would come to Rs. 14,621/- 1/3rd deduction of Rs. 4,873/- towards family heads, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 9,748/- per month. As a consequence, the yearly income would come to Rs. 1,16,976/- applying the multiplier of 13, the future loss of income would come to Rs. 15,20,688/-. Further, under the conventional heads the appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 2,10,000/- adding the same to Rs. 15,20,688/- the total amount of compensation would come to Rs .17,30,688/-. The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs. 6,29,000/-. Thus, the appellants-original claimants shall be entitled to additional amount of Rs. 11,01,688/- @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization of the amount. 20. The First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 21. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith. Appeal partly allowed.