JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As both these first appeals and cross objections are against the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, two preferred by the respective insurance companies of the vehicles involved in the accident and the Cross Objections filed by the original claimants, both these First Appeals and Cross Objections are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 475/2002, by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 21,91,000/- to the original claimants under different heads, for the death of deceased Prabhatsinh Dolatsinh Zala, the original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of the Truck bearing No. GJ-2V-4483 involved in the accident - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the First Appeal No. 3602/2007. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, original opponent No. 4 - insurer of Jeep bearing No. GJ-9B-2549 involved in the accident - New India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred First Appeal No. 921/2007 insofar as holding it liable to pay the compensation. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as not awarding the full claim as prayed for, the original claimants have preferred Cross Objection No. 19/2008. 3. Facts leading to the present First Appeals and Cross Objection in nut-shell are as under: 3.1 That in a vehicular accident which occurred between Jeep No. GJ-9B-2549 and Truck No. GJ-2V-4483 on 15.03.2002, the passenger - occupant of the jeep - Prabhatsinh Dolatsinh Zala died. Therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Prabhatsinh Dolatsinh Zala filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs. 30 lakh towards the compensation under different heads. That by impugned judgment and award and on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the Jeep involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 30% and driver of the Truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 70%. 30 lakh towards the compensation under different heads. That by impugned judgment and award and on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the Jeep involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 30% and driver of the Truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 70%. 3.2 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 21,91,000/- towards compensation under different heads as under, with 6% interest: Rs.21,52,992 Loss of dependency Rs. 15,000 Loss of consortium Rs. 20,000 Loss of expectation of life Rs. 3,000 Transportation & funeral expenses Rs.21,91,000 Total compensation 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original opponent No. 2 has preferred First Appeal No. 3602/2007, original opponent No. 4 - New India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred First Appeal No. 921/2007 and the original claimants have preferred Cross Objection No. 19/2008. 4. Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant of First Appeal No. 3602/2007 has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 21,52,992/- under the head of loss of dependency. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant of First Appeal No. 3602/2007 that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income, while awarding future loss of income. 4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant of First Appeal No. 3602/2007 that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 54 years and as per the deposition of the witness examined on behalf of the claimants i.e. Priyakant B. Padhya, who was examined at Exh. 61, there were no further chances of promotion and/or any increments in future and that there was no possibility to increase the salary of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income while awarding future loss of income. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the appeal preferred by original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of Truck involved in the accident to the aforesaid extent. 5. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the appeal preferred by original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of Truck involved in the accident to the aforesaid extent. 5. The first appeal preferred by the original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of the truck involved in the accident is vehemently opposed by Shri Hiren Modi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. In support of his submissions to dismiss the appeal preferred by the original opponent No. 2 - insurance company and in support of his Cross Objection preferred by the original claimants, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Modi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that assuming that the learned Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% amount towards future rise in income, in that case also, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding Rs. 21,91,000/- is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 5.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Modi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that while awarding future loss of income the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that looking to number of claimants the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that while awarding future loss of income, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged 24 years of age, as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and more particularly in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 11. 5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is submitted that as the accident had occurred in the year 2002, as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It is submitted that as the accident had occurred in the year 2002, as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5.3 Shri Modi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding a total sum of Rs. 38,000/- under the conventional heads. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded atleast Rs. 1,10,000/- under conventional heads. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the First Appeal No. 3602/2007 and to allow Cross Objection No. 19/2008. 6. Now, so far as the First Appeal No. 921/2007 preferred by New India Insurance Co. Ltd. - original opponent No. 4 - insurance company of the truck involved in the accident is concerned, Shri Ajay Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original opponent No. 4 - appellant in First Appeal No. 921/2007 has vehemently submitted that as the deceased was a fare paying passenger in a private vehicle (Jeep), the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the insurance company of the truck involved in the accident liable to pay the compensation. 6.1 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original opponent No. 4 that as such the learned Tribunal has accepted the defence raised on behalf of the original opponent No. 4 - insurance company, however thereafter has passed an order to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle, which is not permissible and sustainable. Making above submissions and relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotibala Ghanshyam Joshi and Ors. reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1681 , it is requested to allow First Appeal No. 921/2007 and quash and set aside the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as holding the insurance company of the truck involved in the accident liable to pay the compensation. 7. Ltd. v. Jyotibala Ghanshyam Joshi and Ors. reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1681 , it is requested to allow First Appeal No. 921/2007 and quash and set aside the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as holding the insurance company of the truck involved in the accident liable to pay the compensation. 7. Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of the Truck involved in the accident is not in a position to dispute that as the deceased was a fare paying passenger in the private vehicle - jeep, the insurance company of the jeep cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. However, has requested to make suitable observations that the original opponent No. 2 shall be entitled to recover 30% amount i.e. to the extent the driver of the jeep is held contributory negligent, from the owner of the jeep. 8. Shri Modi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that so far as the claimants are concerned, it will be a case of composite negligence and therefore, even if original opponent No. 4 is held not to be liable to pay the compensation, in that case also, the claimants can recover the entire amount from the insurance company of the truck involved in the accident. 9. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that admittedly the deceased was traveling in the jeep as a passenger - fare paying passenger. Therefore, the risk is not covered so far as the insurance company of the jeep involved in the accident is concerned. Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid undisputed fact, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding original opponent No. 4 - insurance company of the jeep involved in the accident liable to pay the compensation. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such the learned Tribunal has accepted the defence of the original opponent No. 4 - insurance company of the jeep involved in the accident, however thereafter has passed an order to pay and recover which as such is not permissible. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such the learned Tribunal has accepted the defence of the original opponent No. 4 - insurance company of the jeep involved in the accident, however thereafter has passed an order to pay and recover which as such is not permissible. 9.1 Under the circumstances, First Appeal No. 921/2007 preferred by the insurance company of the jeep involved in the accident - New India Insurance Company Ltd. is required to be allowed to the extent it fastens the liability upon it to pay the compensation. However, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei (Supra), it will be open for the insurance company of the other vehicle - insurance company of the truck involved in the accident to recover the amount to the extent of 30% i.e. to the extent of 30% i.e. to the extent of driver of Jeep is held contributory negligent. It is also clarified that the aforesaid shall not come in the way of the original claimants to recover the entire amount from the insurance company of the truck involved in the accident i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as for as the original claimants are concerned, it will be a case of composite negligence. 9.2 Now, so far as First Appeal No. 3602/2007 preferred by the original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of the truck involved in the accident and Cross Objections preferred by the original claimants is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 21,91,000/- under different heads with 6% interest thereon. That the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 21,52,992/- under the head of future loss of income. That while awarding future loss of income the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 22,427/-. However, thereafter, the learned Tribunal has added 50% towards future rise in income and has determined the prospective income at Rs. 33,641/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased the learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income at Rs. 22,427/- i.e. yearly Rs. 2,69,124/- and after applying the multiplier of 8 has awarded Rs. 21,52,992/- towards future loss of income. However, it is required to be noted that deceased at the time of accident was aged 54 years. 33,641/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased the learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income at Rs. 22,427/- i.e. yearly Rs. 2,69,124/- and after applying the multiplier of 8 has awarded Rs. 21,52,992/- towards future loss of income. However, it is required to be noted that deceased at the time of accident was aged 54 years. He was serving as a Manager in the Cooperative Bank. As per the deposition of witness examined on behalf of the claimants i.e. Priyakant B. Padhya (Exh. 61) who was the Bank Officer, he has categorically admitted that at the time of accident/death, the deceased had already received maximum increments and the promotion and in future there was no possibility of any promotion and/or income/salary. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income. However, the learned Tribunal while awarding the future loss of income has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. 9.3 Looking to the number of claimants, only 1/4th was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 8 while awarding future loss of income as the deceased was aged 54 years of age, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the multiplier of 11 was required to be applied. 9.4 Under the circumstances and considering the above, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 20,36,700/- towards future loss of income/loss of dependency. 9.5 That the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 38,000/- under the conventional heads and funeral expenses. As the accident had occurred in the year 2002, as per the catena of decisions of this Court the original claimants shall be entitled to atleast Rs. 1,10,000/- under the conventional heads and funeral expenses. 9.6 That the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. As the accident has occurred in the year 2002, the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. To the aforesaid extent the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and First Appeal No. 3602/2007 and the Cross Objection are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 10. To the aforesaid extent the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and First Appeal No. 3602/2007 and the Cross Objection are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No. 921/2007 is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 475/2002 insofar as holding original opponent No. 4 - New India Insurance Company Ltd. - insurance company of the jeep involved in the accident liable to pay the compensation is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the same shall not affect the right of the original claimants to get the compensation from the original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of the truck involved in the accident as so far as they are concerned, it will be a case of composite negligence. It is also made clear that it will be open for the original opponent No. 2 - insurance company of the truck involved in the accident to recover the amount to the extent of 30% i.e. to the extent of the driver of the jeep is held contributory negligent, from the owner of the jeep involved in the accident. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No. 3602/2007 and Cross Objection No. 19/2008 are hereby partly allowed. Impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 475/2002 is hereby modified to the extent it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 21,46,761/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. No costs.