JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.K. Nair for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Bharat Jani for respondents No. 1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. H.G. Mazmudar for respondent No. 6 and learned advocate Mr. Paresh Darji for respondent No. 4. 2. The appellant - Insurance Company has challenged the consolidated judgment and award dated 19.8.2010 in M.A.C.P. Nos. 1483 of 1988 and allied matters by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) of Ahmedabad City. Amongst such group matters, M.A.C.P. No. 1535 of 1998 was preferred by legal heirs of deceased victim Ambalal Himmatji Prajapati and award in their favour has been challenged in First Appeal No. 274 of 2011; whereas legal heirs of deceased victim - Amrat Taraji Prajapati had preferred M.A.C.P. No. 7 of 1999, award of which is under challenge in First Appeal No. 275 of 2011. 3. Since challenge in both the appeals is common consolidated award in group matters, appeals are heard together and decided by this common judgment though both the appeals are mainly on quantum of compensation. 4. As aforesaid, when both the appeals are mainly for quantum of compensation that was awarded in favour of the original claimants being respective respondents in the present appeals, though factual details of incident and history of litigation is not much material, relevant information for consideration of quantum needs to be recollected, which can be summarised as under:-- Incident:-- The victims were travelling in jeep on 24.4.1998 from Mumbai to Bhuti (Rajasthan) which collided with a luxury bus. Therefore, when victims were passengers in a jeep, they are not concerned with the accident and hence, this is a case of composite negligence of joint tortfeasors and thereby, claimants are entitled to recover full set of compensation from any of the tortfeasor so also jointly and severally from all of them. In view of such clarity, irrespective of inter se liability of both the tortfeasors, so also their defence regarding contract of insurance, the claimants are entitled to recover full set of compensation from any one of them. Therefore, practically, details of accident is not required to be discussed in detail, more particularly when it is well described in the impugned judgment itself. 5. Therefore, practically, details of accident is not required to be discussed in detail, more particularly when it is well described in the impugned judgment itself. 5. For consideration of quantum of compensation that was awarded to the claimants in First Appeal No. 274 of 2011 arising from award in M.A.C.P. No. 1535 of 1998, following information is material :-- Name of the victim Ambalal Himmatji Prajapati Result of the incident Fatal Age of the victim 30 years (supported by P.M. Report, Exh. 67 and School Leaving Certificate, Exh. 68) Income of the victim Rs. 6, 000/- p.m. from the business in the name and style of M/s. Alankar Stores, situated in the Shopping Mall at Thana Marital status of the victim Unmarried Quantum of compensation Rs. 5, 76, 000/- - towards dependency benefits (considering monthly loss of dependency as Rs. 3, 000/- and applying 16 as suitable multiplier). Rs. 20, 000/- - towards loss of expectancy of life. Rs. 5, 000/- - towards funeral expenses. Thereby, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6, 01, 000/- 6. Whereas quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents in First Appeal No. 275 of 2011 arising out of M.A.C.P. No. 7 of 1999, the relevant information can be recollected as under:-- Name of the victim Amratlal Tanaji Prajapati Result of the incident Fatal Age of the victim 32 years Income of the victim Rs. 4, 500/- from the factory manufacturing steel utensils. Supported by copy of assessment order of income-tax at Exh.75 disclosing the income for the year 1996-97 as Rs. 40, 480/-. Marital status of the victim Married Quantum of compensation Rs. 6, 12, 000/- - towards dependency benefits (considering monthly loss of dependency as Rs. 3, 000/- and applying 17 as suitable multiplier). Rs. 20, 000/- - towards loss of expectancy of life. Rs. 20, 000/- - towards consortium Rs. 5, 000/- - towards funeral expenses. Thereby, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6, 57, 000/- 7. 6, 12, 000/- - towards dependency benefits (considering monthly loss of dependency as Rs. 3, 000/- and applying 17 as suitable multiplier). Rs. 20, 000/- - towards loss of expectancy of life. Rs. 20, 000/- - towards consortium Rs. 5, 000/- - towards funeral expenses. Thereby, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6, 57, 000/- 7. In view of above background, now, if we consider the rival submissions and available record as well as record and proceedings, it becomes clear that though the Tribunal has considered the income of both the victims of same accident based upon some guess-work and presumption, there is no cogent and reliable evidence in rebuttal to disprove the statement and version on oath by the claimants regarding income of the victims in both the appeals. It is undisputed fact that in case of deceased Ambalal, though claimants have claimed that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m. and though it is stated that in case such death had not occurred, he would have earned more than Rs. 8,000/- p.m., the Tribunal has considered his income as Rs. 6,000/- only. Thereby, reduced it by Rs. 2,000/-, whereas in appeal memo, the Insurance Company has suggested to further reduce it to Rs. 5,000/- and to award Rs. 2,40,000/- towards loss of dependency. Therefore, practically, there is marginal difference in what is awarded by the Tribunal and what is suggested by the Insurance Company because so far as multiplier is concerned, though Insurance Company has submitted to reduce it to 8%. Now, it is settled legal position that when loss of dependency is reduced to 50% in case of parents, the multiplier also cannot be reduced to one-half, since the benefit of savings and earnings of the victim cannot be extended to the tort feasors, but it should be extended to the legal heirs of the victims. 8. Whereas in case of deceased Amratlal, when there is income-tax return on record, confirming the income of approximately Rs. 3,000/- p.m., I do not see any reason to reduce the earning capacity any further though Tribunal has considered the prospective income and thereby, earning capacity per month is Rs. 4,500/-. 8. Whereas in case of deceased Amratlal, when there is income-tax return on record, confirming the income of approximately Rs. 3,000/- p.m., I do not see any reason to reduce the earning capacity any further though Tribunal has considered the prospective income and thereby, earning capacity per month is Rs. 4,500/-. In view of such fact, the income in the case of deceased Ambalal can also be considered as prospective income when Tribunal has not taken into consideration any increase and thereby, in both the cases, there is no reason to interfere with the quantum so far as dependency benefits are concerned. 9. Even for the sake of argument and even if we believe the contentions of the appellant as pleaded in the memo of appeal and as vehemently argued by learned advocate Mr. Nair for the appellant, the fact remains that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amount for loss of consortium so also for loss of love and affection and also for loss of estate, which amount would be now minimum Rs. 1 Lac on such head as decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Jiju Kurivila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the award even if there may be marginal difference in calculation, if we recalculate the quantum, not as suggested and pressed by the appellant, but considering the overall facts and circumstances emerging from record. 10. It cannot be ignored that the Tribunal has taken care of all relevant evidence and factual details available on record and that both the victims are young and growing men and therefore, they had ample opportunity to earn more and to help their relatives being claimants herein. It is also clear that an unhappy early death certainly results into set-back in the life of parents and widow of the victim and therefore, they are also entitled to reasonable amount of compensation on all such counts which otherwise cannot be quantified or compensated in terms of money. 11. It is also clear that an unhappy early death certainly results into set-back in the life of parents and widow of the victim and therefore, they are also entitled to reasonable amount of compensation on all such counts which otherwise cannot be quantified or compensated in terms of money. 11. The law is now well settled on such issues and therefore, it would not be appropriate and required to recollect and reproduce all decisions on such count, which otherwise confirm that there is nothing in the impugned award which entitles this Court to interfere with such award in the present appeal, more particularly to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants as per such award. For such determination, I am placing reliance on following judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India:-- "(1) Anjani Singh v. Salauddin, reported in 2014 (6) SCALE 55; (2) Asha Verman v. Maharaj Singh, reported in (2015) 42 SCD 537; (3) Kala Devi v. Bhagwan Das Chauhan, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 771 ; (4) Chanderi Devi v. Jaspal Singh, reported in 2015 (4) SCALE 390." 12. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the appeals and therefore, they are dismissed. 113. R & P, if any received, shall be sent back to the concerned Tribunal/Court forthwith.