JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - Vide common award dated 20.10.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribnunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in MAC Petition No.63-N/2 of 2007, titled as Smt. Amra Devi & others vs. Shri Manoj Yadav & others, alongwith connected petitions, four claim petitions filed by the claimants stand decided by the Tribunal. 2. In Claim Petition No.63-N/2 of 2007, filed by Smt.Amra Devi widow of Late Shri Chander Mani, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following terms:- "29. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the amount under the following heads:- 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3600+30%, Rs. 1080/- i.e; monthly income Rs. 4680/- X 12 X 14 = Rs. 7,86,240.00 2) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 3) Loss of consortium i.e; spouse/widow = Rs. 10,000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 8,11,240.00 3. In Claim Petition No.65-N/2 of 2007, filed by Smt.Dhanwanti wife of Late Sh.Kaku Ram, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following terms:- "33. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the amount under the following heads:- 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3000+30%, Rs. 900/- i.e; monthly income Rs. 3900/- X 12 X 14 = Rs. 6,55,200.00 2) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 3) Loss of consortium i.e; spouse/widow = Rs. 10,000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 6,80,200.00 4. In Claim Petition No.27-N/2 of 2008, filed by Smt. Nomi Devi widow of Late Sh. Inder Singh, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following terms:- "38. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the amount under the following heads:- 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3375+30%, Rs. 1013/- i.e; monthly income Rs. 4388/- X 12 X 15 = Rs. 7,89,840.00 2) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 3) Loss of consortium i.e; spouse/widow = Rs. 10,000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 8,14,840.00 5. In Claim Petition No.28-N/2 of 2009, filed by Vinod Kumar son of Late Sh.Kewal Ram, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following terms:- "42. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the amount under the following heads:- 1) Compensation for treatment as per medical bills and produced and calculated =Rs. 45,519.00 2) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3000+30%, Rs. 900/- i.e; total monthly income Rs. 3900/- X 12 X 14 = Rs. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the amount under the following heads:- 1) Compensation for treatment as per medical bills and produced and calculated =Rs. 45,519.00 2) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3000+30%, Rs. 900/- i.e; total monthly income Rs. 3900/- X 12 X 14 = Rs. 6,55,200.00 3) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 7,15,719.00 6. It is not in dispute that the claimants, the owners and the other insurer have accepted the award. 7. It is only the present appellant, namely, National Insurance Company Limited, through its Deputy Manager, who is an insurer of the Truck bearing No.DL-19-B-4088, lays challenge to the present award, so filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 8. Two issues arise for consideration in the present appeals, which are disposed of by a common order: (a) as to whether accident can be said to be as a result of negligence, contributory or otherwise, of a person driving Canter bearing No.HR-38-D-3793 (hereinafter referred to as the Canter) or is it that the driver of the Truck bearing No. DL-19-B-4088 (hereinafter referred to as the Truck) alone was responsible for the accident, which resulted into the death/injuries of the occupants who were travelling in the Canter; and (b) as to whether the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal to each one of the claimants is just, fair, proper and needs to be modified, if so required, in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) ACJ 2700. 9. It is not in dispute that on 21.08.2007, truck driven by Manoj Yadav met with an accident, as a result of which occupant(s) of the Canter died/suffered injuries. FIR No.176, dated 21.08.2017, was registered at the concerned Police Station and medical treatment given to the injured. 10. From the perusal of the record, it is also not in dispute that on the basis of the averments made by the parties in their respective pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of driver respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No.DL-19-B-4088 and the deceased Chander Mani died as a result of the accident? OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3) Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-1,2,3 & 5 4) Whether the driver of the truck No.DL-19-B-4088 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 5) Whether the truck bearing registration No.DL-19-B4088 was being plied without route permit and was over loaded at the time of accident, in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR-3 6) Whether the risk of deceased Kaku Ram was not covered under the Insurance Policy being an unauthorized passenger in Truck No.HR-38-D-3793? OPR-5 7) Whether driver Suresh of Truck No.HR-38-D-3793 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-5 8) Whether truck No. HR-38-D-3793 was being plied without permit and the owner had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and of M.V. Act? OPR-5 9) Relief 11. Before this Court, only findings returned on issue No.1 arise for consideration. 12. It is not in dispute that truck was being driven by Manoj Yadav and the Canter by Suresh @ Manish Kumar. Also in the Canter, there were more than 6 occupants, out of whom, four namely Chander Mani, Kaku Ram, Inder Singh and Kewal Ram, expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and another occupant Mast Ram sustained injuries. 13. While answering issue No.1, with regard to the negligence of the driver of the truck, if any, the Tribunal referred to the testimonies of several witnesses, but eventually by relying upon the statement of Mast Ram (PW.3), concluded the negligence to be solely that of Manoj Yadav, driver of the truck. Also FIR and record of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipath (Ex.RW-3/A to Ex.PRW-3/F) was considered. 14. Even though Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel, has argued, with vehemence, that the fault was that of the driver of the canter, who did not maintain safe driving distance from the truck, but then this Court, is of the considered view, that findings returned by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, illogical or not borne out from the material so placed on the record. Evidence fully supports such fact. Evidence fully supports such fact. The truck was loaded with pipes of more than 20 feet length, some of which were protruding outside the body of the truck. There was no safety tag or any sign, indicating that the material carried in the truck could be hazardous thereby cautioning the passersby or other vehicles to be careful or exercise due caution. 15. Close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the fault was purely that of the driver of the Truck, who suddenly stopped the vehicle and that the driver of the Canter did try to save his vehicle from the accident, but then, since some of the protruding pipes hit the Canter, it resulted into the said vehicle turning turtle, causing injuries to the occupants some of whom succumbed to the same. As such, while answering issue No.1, it cannot be said that fault is that of the driver, driving the Canter. 16. Coming to the second issue, it be observed that the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi , has already crystallized the principles, which are required to be followed by all the Courts throughout the country. Applying the same, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award, insofar as the determination of the compensation is concerned, requires modification, which is so done as under:- 1. Claim Petition No.63-N/2 of 2007 (By applying multiplier of 13 and future prospects @ 25%) 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3600+25%, Rs. 900/- i.e; monthly income Rs. 4500/- X 12 X 13 =Rs. 7,02,000.00 2) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 3) Loss of consortium i.e; spouse/widow = Rs. 10,000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 7,27,000.00 Thus, claimants in the said petition would be held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 7,27,000/- instead of Rs. 8,11,240/- 2. Claim Petition No.65-N/2 of 2007 (By taking future prospects @ 25%) 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3000+25%, Rs. 750/- i.e; monthly income Rs. 3750/- X 12 X 14 =Rs. 6,30,000.00 2) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 3) Loss of consortium i.e; spouse/widow = Rs. 10,000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 6,55,000.00 Thus, claimants in the said petition would be held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/- instead of Rs. 6,80,200/- 3. 3750/- X 12 X 14 =Rs. 6,30,000.00 2) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 3) Loss of consortium i.e; spouse/widow = Rs. 10,000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 6,55,000.00 Thus, claimants in the said petition would be held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 6,55,000/- instead of Rs. 6,80,200/- 3. Claim Petition No.27-N/2 of 2008 (By taking future prospects @ 40%) 1) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3375+40%, Rs. 1350/- i.e; monthly income Rs. 4725/- X 12 X 15 =Rs. 8,50,500.00 2) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 3) Loss of consortium i.e; spouse/widow = Rs. 10,000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 8,75,500.00 Thus, claimants in the said petition would be held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 8,75,500/- instead of Rs. 8,14,840/- 4.Claim Petition No.28-N/2 of 2009 (By taking future prospects @ 25% 1) Compensation for treatment as per medical bills and produced and calculated =Rs. 45,519.00 2) Loss of dependency comes out i.e;Rs. 3000+25%, Rs. 750/- i.e; total monthly income Rs. 3750/- X 12 X 14 = Rs. 6,30,000.00 3) Charges of transportation of dead body = Rs. 5000.00 4) Funeral Charges = Rs. 10,000.00 Total = Rs. 6,90,519.00 Thus, claimants in the said petition would be held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 6,90,519/- instead of Rs. 7,15,719/- 17. To this extent, impugned award dated 20.10.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in MAC Petition No.63-N/2 of 2007, titled as Smt. Amra Devi & others vs. Shri Manoj Yadav and others; MAC Petition No.65-N/2 of 2007, titled as Smt. Dhanwanti & others vs. Shri Manoj Yadav & others; MAC Petition No.27-N/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Nomi Devi & others vs. Shri Manoj Yadav & others; and MAC Petition No.28-N/2 of 2009, titled as Vinod Kumar vs. Shri Manoj Yadav & others, stand modified. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any.