JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise, and as such arising out of impugned common judgment and award dated 17th February 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Auxi.], Vadodara, both these Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with common impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Auxi.], Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal"] in Motor Accident Claim Petitions No. 759 of 1995 and 1314 of 1995, by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petitions by holding that the driver of the Truck Trailer involved in the accident as a sole negligent in the accident, the Insurer of the Truck Trailer involved in the accident viz., New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred the present First Appeals. 3. In a vehicular accident which occurred on 11th May 1995 at about 1:30 a.m/midnight between Tempo, bearing registration No. GJ-6U-5684 and Truck trailer, bearing registration No. HR-26A-7200, the driver of Tempo involved in the accident Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Patel died. One another person Fatehsingh Parmar who was also travelling in the Tempo also unfortunately died. Therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Patel and deceased-Fatehsingh Parmar filed claim petitions before the learned Tribunal, being M.A.C.P No. 759 of 1995 and 1314 of 1995. That, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the truck trailer involved in the accident as sole negligent in the accident. That, against the total claim of Rs. 25,00,000/- claimed by the claimants of MACP No. 759 of 1995, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,56,000/- to the original claimants under different heads, as under :- Future Loss of Dependency Rs. 13,25,000/= [Rs. 6,750/= x 12 x 17] Conventional Head Rs. 25,000/= Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/= Rs. 13,56,000/= 3.1 That, against the total claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal determined and awarded compensation at Rs. 5,29,000/- under different heads, as under : Future Loss of Dependency Rs. 5,04,000/= [Rs. 2,800/= x 12 x 15] Conventional Head Rs. 20,000/= Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/= Rs. 5,29,000/= 4. 25,000/= Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/= Rs. 13,56,000/= 3.1 That, against the total claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal determined and awarded compensation at Rs. 5,29,000/- under different heads, as under : Future Loss of Dependency Rs. 5,04,000/= [Rs. 2,800/= x 12 x 15] Conventional Head Rs. 20,000/= Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/= Rs. 5,29,000/= 4. On feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, and more particularly in holding the driver of the truck trailer sole negligent for the accident, the Insurer of the truck trailer involved in the accident has preferred the present First Appeals. 5. Shri Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. Shri MTM Hakim, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants of MACP No. 759 of 1995. Shri B.K Raj, learned advocate appeared for and on behalf of the original claimants in MACP No. 1314 of 1995. 6. Learned advocate Shri Ajay Mehta appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the truck trailer sole negligent for the accident. 6.1 It is submitted by Shri Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company that as such the accident had occurred on the main highway and both the vehicles were coming from the opposite side and dashed with each other, and therefore, it is the case of head on collision, and hence, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the truck trailer sole negligent for the accident. 6.2 It is further submitted by Shri Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of seventeen, while awarding the future loss of original claimants of MACP No. 759 of 1995. It is further submitted by Shri Ajay Mehta, learned advocate that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Patel at Rs. 6,500/- per month. It is submitted that in absence of any other material/evidence on record with respect to the income of the deceased Sureshbhai R. Patel, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in determining the income of the deceased Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Patel at Rs. 6,500/- per month. 6,500/- per month. It is submitted that in absence of any other material/evidence on record with respect to the income of the deceased Sureshbhai R. Patel, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in determining the income of the deceased Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Patel at Rs. 6,500/- per month. 6.3 It is further submitted by Shri Ajay R Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income so far as MACP No. 1314 of 1995 is concerned. It is submitted that as the deceased Fatehsingh Parmar at the time of accident was aged about 45 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 30% of Rs. 2,858/- towards future rise in income and thereby ought to have awarded future loss in come accordingly. 6.4 Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Appeals accordingly. 7. Both these Appeals are vehemently opposed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective original claimants. 8. It is vehemently submitted by Shri MTM Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the driver of the truck trailer involved in the accident sole negligent for the accident. 8.1 It is submitted that admittedly the driver of the truck trailer involved in the accident did not step into the witness box. It is submitted that as such, he could be said to be the best witness to examine, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference against the driver of the truck. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the truck trailer involved in the accident sole negligent on appreciation of evidence on the record; more particularly, on appreciation of deposition of Police Officer who was examined and who conducted an inquiry, pursuant to the FIR filed. It is submitted that in the statement before the Police, which has been proved, the Driver of the truck trailer specifically admitted that he was sleepy as he came from a long drive, and therefore, accident had taken place. It is submitted that even he has specifically made a statement before the Police Officer that his second driver had drawn attention that accident is likely to take place. It is submitted that even he has specifically made a statement before the Police Officer that his second driver had drawn attention that accident is likely to take place. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and when on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the truck trailer sole negligent for the accident, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on negligence is arrived at on appreciation of evidence, which is neither per verse nor contrary to the evidence available on the record. 8.2 Now so far as submissions made on behalf of the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 17 in MACP No. 759 of 1995 and the submission that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 16 is concerned, it is submitted by Shri HMT Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants of MACP No. 759 of 1995 that as such, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd toward personal expenses of the deceased Sureshbhai Ravjibhai Patel. It is submitted that as such looking to the number of claimants, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that if the aforesaid fact is considered, in that case, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount which requires interference by this Court. 8.3 Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss First Appeal No. 3238 of 2007 arising out of MACP No. 749 of 1995. 9. First Appeal No. 3239 of 2007 is opposed by Shri B.K Raj, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants of MACP No. 1313 of 1995. It is vehemently urged by Shri Raj, learned advocate for the defendants that the learned Tribunal has as such materially erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased Fatehsingh Parmar. It is submitted that looking to the number of claimants, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is vehemently urged by Shri Raj, learned advocate for the defendants that the learned Tribunal has as such materially erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased Fatehsingh Parmar. It is submitted that looking to the number of claimants, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that when the aforesaid is considered and even if the submissions made on behalf of the appellant is accepted, in that case also, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal in MACP No. 1314 of 1995 cannot be said to be exorbitant, which calls for interference by this Court. 9.1 Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss First Appeal No. 3239 of 2007 arising out of MACP No. 1314 of 1995. 10. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. 11. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence available on the record. 12. At the outset, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the Driver of truck trailer sole negligent for the accident. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal have been challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company. However, it is required to be noted that as such the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence; more particularly, considering the deposition of Police Inspector who conducted inquiry in a criminal case, who recorded statement of Driver of the truck trailer. In the statement, the driver of the Truck before the Police, which has been proved, the driver of the truck trailer has specifically admitted that as he was sleepy and coming from a long drive, and therefore, he could not see the car and hence, accident has taken place. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the Driver of truck trailer did not step into the witness box, though he was the best witness to explain the manner in which accident has taken place, and therefore also, as such adverse inference was required to be drawn. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the Driver of the truck trailer sole negligent for the accident, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the Driver of the truck trailer sole negligent for the accident, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on negligence is on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be either per verse or contrary to the evidence available on the record. 13. Now so far as submission on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not applying multiplier of 17, while awarding future income loss to the claimants in MACP No. 759 of 1995 is concerned, it is required to be noted that while awarding future loss of income, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the number of claimants, 1/4th was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, and therefore, if the submission made on behalf of the appellant is accepted that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 16, in that case also, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant, which calls for interference by this Court. 14. Similarly, submissions made on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income in MACP No. 1314 of 1995 is concerned, it is required to be noted that even in the said case also, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Looking at the number of claimants, the learned Tribunal was required to deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses of deceased, and therefore, even if looking to the age of the deceased Fatehsingh Parmar, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 30% towards future rise in income, the amount awarded cannot be said to be exorbitant, which calls for interference by this Court. 15. In view of the above and for the reasons aforestated, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and award dated 17th February 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Auxi], Fast Track Court No. 14, Vadodara in MACP Nos. 759 of 1995 and 1314 of 1995. Consequently, both these Appeals fail and the same are dismissed accordingly. No costs.