JUDGMENT : Appellants are the original claimants, who have preferred this appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 23/12/2005 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akot, Distt. Akola in Claim Petition No. 48/2005, being aggrieved by the inadequate amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the appeal, can be stated as follows : Appellant no.1 is the widow and appellant nos. 2 to 5 are the minor children of the deceased Shatrughan. At the time of accident, his parents were also alive and they were added as claimant nos.6 and 7. During pendency of the claim petition, they have died, hence their names came to be deleted. Deceased Shatrughan was working as ASI at Police Station Telhara, District – Akola. At the time of accident, his age was of 45 years and he was the only earning member of his family, getting salary of Rs.6,240/- per month. 3. On the date of accident, on 04/10/2001, when deceased was coming from Akot to Telhara along with his colleague Arun Gopnarayan on his motorcycle, one Jeep bearing no. MH-30-B-7310 came from opposite direction in high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result deceased Shatrughan succumbed to injuries on the spot, whereas his colleague was also seriously injured. As the cause of his death was the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver, who is respondent no.1 herein, appellants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1860 (hereinafter will be referred to as "Act" for convenience) before the Tribunal against respondent no.1 the driver, respondent no.2 – the owner and respondent no.3 – insurer of the said Jeep, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Respondent nos.1 and 2 did not participate in proceeding as they remained absent despite duly served with notice. Respondent no.3 – insurance company alone resisted the claim petition admitting the factum of accident, involvement of the Jeep and also valid insurance of the said Jeep, however, denied the cause of the accident as rash and negligent driving of the Jeep. It was contended that deceased was not holding valid driving licence and as a result, accident has taken place which was of head on collision, and hence there was at least some contributory negligence on the part of deceased also. It was contended that deceased was not holding valid driving licence and as a result, accident has taken place which was of head on collision, and hence there was at least some contributory negligence on the part of deceased also. Respondent no.1 – Jeep driver alone cannot be held liable for the accident that has ensued. Respondent no.3, therefore, claimed for dismissal of the petition. 5. On these respective pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed necessary issues for it's consideration vide Exh.28. In support of their case, respondent no.1 examined herself and also led the evidence of the pillion rider, Arun Gopnarayan. She further produced the salary certificate of deceased on record. On behalf of the respondent no.3, no evidence was led. 6. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by appellants-claimants, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that though the cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep, as at the relevant time, deceased was not proved to be having valid driving licence, he was held responsible for contributory negligence to the extent of 30% and accordingly having regard to the salary certificate and the age of the deceased, granted compensation of Rs.3,24,730/- to appellants from respondent nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 7. This judgment of the Tribunal is subject matter of the present appeal. Respondents herein have not preferred any appeal or cross objection challenging the findings of the Tribunal, and hence as matter of fact, the only issue which can arise for my determination in this appeal preferred by appellants-claimants, is about the quantum of compensation. Hence this court need not enter in to the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. However, as appellants have challenged the finding of the Tribunal of holding 30% contributory negligence on the deceased for not having valid driving licence, it has become necessary to consider the evidence on record on this aspect also. 8. In this case, there is evidence of eye witness on record, that of Arun Gopnarayan, who was proceeding on the motorcycle of deceased at the time of accident as a pillion rider and in the said accident, he was also injured. 8. In this case, there is evidence of eye witness on record, that of Arun Gopnarayan, who was proceeding on the motorcycle of deceased at the time of accident as a pillion rider and in the said accident, he was also injured. His evidence shows that when they were proceeding on the motorcycle from Akot to Telhara, one Jeep came from opposite direction in high speed and gave dash to their motorcycle, as a result of which both of them sustained injuries. He has deposed that the cause of the accident was the negligence on the part of the Jeep driver. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the accident took place as both the vehicles were coming from opposite direction to each other. He has denied that as he was chitchating with the deceased, the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. He has also denied that as there was a turn to the road, Jeep was in slow speed. Thus, there is nothing in his cross-examination as such to discredit him. 9. Merely because both the vehicles were coming from opposite directions to each other, it cannot be said that he has accepted that it was a head on collision. The spot panchnama and F.I.R. which are produced on record and which are discussed by the Tribunal in it's judgment also, clearly go to show that width of the tar road at the spot of accident was about 25 feet and on both sides of the road there was slope of 5 feet width each and towards East of the road, the motorcycle was lying. It was facing towards South and by the side of the said motorcycle, a bullock cart was parked. The skid marks of the motorcycle were up to the distance of 10 feet. On the North side of the road at the distance of 200 feet, one Jeep was parked. The mudguard of the Jeep was broken and it was lying on the ground. The front tyre of the Jeep was damaged, however no rub marks were noticed on the rear part of the Jeep. The spot panchnama also shows that the Jeep was dragged up to distance of 200 feet. The mudguard of the Jeep was broken and it was lying on the ground. The front tyre of the Jeep was damaged, however no rub marks were noticed on the rear part of the Jeep. The spot panchnama also shows that the Jeep was dragged up to distance of 200 feet. Accordingly the Tribunal has rightly inferred that the Jeep driver could not control the speed of the Jeep, whereas the deceased could control his speed considering the skid marks of the motorcycle were up to 10 feet only. 10. The spot panchnama, thus clearly shows that the Jeep came on wrong side of the road and has given dash to the motorcycle of the deceased. The fact that the mudguard of the Jeep was broken goes to show that it was not at all head on collision, as it is tried to be made out by learned counsel for respondent no.3. The police had also, after carrying out necessary inquiry and investigation, registered offence against the Jeep driver. Respondent no.1, the Jeep driver has not come before the court to give evidence to prove that motorcycle was also to some extent responsible for the accident as it was a head on collision. None of the respondents have examined any other eye witness to the accident. In such situation, the finding of fact given by the Tribunal that the cause of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep, needs to be confirmed and affirmed. 11. The Tribunal, has however, held that as the driving licence of the deceased was not produced, though a specific defence was raised that he was not having valid driving licence, 30% of the contributory negligence needs to be attributed to the deceased also. However, in my considered opinion, if the deceased was not having driving licence, that fact was required to be proved by respondent no.3. Merely because the driving licence is not produced on record, it would not be possible to infer to that effect when there is categorical evidence of the wife of the deceased that deceased was having such driving licence. 12. Moreover, even assuming that deceased was not having such valid driving licence, that alone cannot be sufficient to attribute 30% negligence to the deceased. 12. Moreover, even assuming that deceased was not having such valid driving licence, that alone cannot be sufficient to attribute 30% negligence to the deceased. Only if it was proved that accident has occurred due to negligence or rashness of the deceased, one could have taken into consideration the aspect that he was not having valid driving licence. Here in the case, the evidence on record nowhere shows that deceased was, in any way negligent or rash in his driving, so as to attribute the contributory negligence of 30% to the deceased. As a matter of fact, even no evidence is produced on record to show that police has applied the charge under section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the count that deceased was not holding valid driving licence. Thus, sans any evidence on record, the finding given by learned Tribunal that deceased was not having a valid driving licence and therefore attributing him 30% of contributory negligence, is totally against the well settled legal position, and hence that finding needs to be set aside. 13. Now coming to the amount of compensation. At the time of accident, deceased was running the age of 42 years as deposed by his widow Shobha. The extract of his service book reveals that he was born on 10/10/1956, and therefore, on the date of accident on 04/10/2001, his age was about 45 years. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13'. However, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for appellants, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104, for the age group between 41 to 45 years, an appropriate multiplier would be 14'. 14. As per the evidence on record, which is the salary certificate of the deceased, he was working as ASI in Police Department and his gross salary was Rs.6,940/- per month and after deduction, his net salary of Rs.5,012/-. In view of his age and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 30% of the said income is required to be added as additional income towards his future prospects, and therefore, the said amount comes to Rs.6,515/- per month. 15. In view of his age and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 30% of the said income is required to be added as additional income towards his future prospects, and therefore, the said amount comes to Rs.6,515/- per month. 15. At the time of accident, deceased was having the liability of his widow, four children and the parents, therefore, the claimants were 4 to 6, and hence 1/4th of the said amount needs to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- to appellant no.1widow for loss of consortium and Rs.3,000/- to the children for loss of estate. In my considered opinion, one cannot ignore the recent trend of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reflected in the case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54, which require that the amount of compensation towards the loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, needs to be enhanced and accordingly those are enhanced at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant no.1 and Rs.1,50,000/towards loss of love and affection to the children. Appellants are also entitled for the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, total amount of compensation to which appellants are entitled can be reassessed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (i) Salary Rs.5,012/- per month (ii) 30% of (i) above to be added as future prospects (Rs.5,012/- + Rs.1,503/-) = Rs.6,515/- per month (iii) 1/4 th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.6,515/- Rs. - 1,629/- = Rs.4,886/- per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 14' is applied (Rs.4,886/- x 12 x 14) = Rs.8,20,848/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- (vi) Loss of love and affection to the children Rs.1,50,000/- (vii) Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.10,95,848/- 17. Thus, the total amount of compensation to which appellants become entitled is Rs.10,95,848/- Appellants are entitled to recover the said amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. 18. Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. 19. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,24,713/- to Rs.10,95,848/-. 20. 18. Appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. 19. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,24,713/- to Rs.10,95,848/-. 20. Rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal stands confirmed.