JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of facts and law arise in this group of Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal” for short) passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 353 of 2007 and as such both the Appeals are Cross-Appeals, they are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgement and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 353 of 2007, by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization towards compensation for the death of deceased Pravinbhai Mansinhbhai Amaliyar, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased - original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal No. 466 of 2012. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal in so far as holding the original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company of the Motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-18-Q-7419 liable to pay compensation, original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal No. 2037 of 2011. 3. Facts leading to the present First Appeals in nutshell are as under :- 3.1. That in a vehicular accident which occurred on 31/1/2007 while the deceased was returning at home by motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-18-J-5990 and at that time the original opponent No.1 came with his motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-18-Q-7419 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased from front-side, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous head injuries and he succumbed to the injuries after approximately 2.1/2 days. At the relevant time, the motorcycle bearing GJ-18-Q-7419 was insured with the original respondent No.1 – Insurance Company. 3.2. The deceased at the time of accident was aged 27 years of age and he was serving as a consultant in Primeone Workforce Private Limited, Gandhinagar. According to the original claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.6300/- per month. The deceased at the time of accident was bachelor. 3.2. The deceased at the time of accident was aged 27 years of age and he was serving as a consultant in Primeone Workforce Private Limited, Gandhinagar. According to the original claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.6300/- per month. The deceased at the time of accident was bachelor. The original claimants, therefore preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No.353 of 2007 claiming Rs.45 Lacs towards compensation under different heads for the death of the deceased. 3.3. The aforesaid claim petition was opposed by the original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company by filing Written Statement at Ex.31. The Insurance Company denied the liability to pay compensation. It was the case on behalf of the Insurance Company that after the accident and when the Insurance Company deposited premium which was paid by cheque, the cheque came to be returned/dishonoured and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 3.4. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has assessed the gross monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3000/-. Deducting 1/2nd of the salary towards the personal expenses of the deceased and after applying multiplier of 13, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.4,68,000/- towards future loss of income. The learned tribunal has also awarded a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The learned tribunal also awarded Rs.5000/- towards loss to the estate and expectation of life and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by the impugned Judgement and Award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,98,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 3.5. Thus, by the impugned Judgement and Award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,98,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 3.5. Considering the fact that at the time of accident the insurance policy Ex.68 was in force and the insurance policy was to expire on 26/1/2008 and considering the fact that the accident took place on 31/1/2007, and after observing that the cheque for payment of premium of the insurance was issued prior to occurrence of the accident and the same was required to be deposited and honoured by the Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company has not done so, and the cheque was deposited by the Insurance Company subsequent to the occurrence of the accident and the cheque was dishonoured subsequently, the learned tribunal has overruled the objection raised on behalf of the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 3.6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal, both, original claimants as well as original opponent No.3 – Insurance Company have preferred the present First Appeals. 4. Mr.Bipin Bhatt, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants and Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original opponent No.3 – driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-18-Q-7419 has remained absent. 5. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal has erred in assessing and/or considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.6000/- per month. 5.1. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has materially erred in not considering the future rise in income / future prospects at all while awarding loss of dependency. 5.2. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has further submitted that the learned tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only towards pain, shock and suffering. 5.3. 5.2. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has further submitted that the learned tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only towards pain, shock and suffering. 5.3. Mr.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 3 GLH 536, has further submitted that the original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of estate and funeral expenses. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the appeal preferred by the original claimants to the aforesaid extent and modify the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal to the aforesaid extent. 6. Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, while opposing the First Appeal preferred by the original claimants, has vehemently submitted that as the deceased was working on contract basis which is evident from the deposition of witness examined on behalf of the original claimants at Ex.Nos. 40 and 42. It is submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal has rightly assessed and considered the loss of dependency at Rs.6000/- per month while awarding future loss of income. However, Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, is not in a position to dispute that while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has not at all considered future prospects. 7.00. Now so far as the First Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company being First Appeal No.2037 of 2011 challenging the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation is concerned, Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has submitted that as the cheque given by the owner of the motorcycle towards the payment of premium of the Insurance came to be dishonoured, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. In the alternative, it is submitted that if this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, in that case, order of Pay and Recover i.e. directing the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation to the original claimants and then recover the same from the owner, may be passed. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 8. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have considered the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal. We have also re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 8.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the deceased at the time of accident was receiving Rs.5979/- per month. However, it is required to be noted that the deceased was working on contract basis which is evident from the deposition of the witness examined on behalf of the original claimants at Ex. Nos.40 and 42. Considering the documentary evidence on record, more particularly Bank Statement produced on record on behalf of the original claimants, the amount which was received by the deceased varies, more particularly in the month of October,2006, he has received Rs.4982/-, in the month of November,2006 he received Rs.5338/-, in December, 2006 he received Rs.5979/- and in the month of January, 2007, he received Rs.4982/-. Taking the mean of the above income of the deceased at the time of accident can be considered at Rs.5154/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and others (supra), 40% of the above is required to be added towards future prospects which would come to Rs.7215/- per month. As the deceased was bachelor, 1/2nd is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.3607 per month. At the time of accident the deceased was aged 27 years and therefore multiplier of 17 is required to be applied an therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,36,032/- towards loss of dependency. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and others (supra), the original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss to the estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. As the deceased survived for 2.1/2 days and was hospitalized and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries, we are of the opinion that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only towards the pain, shock and suffering. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The sum and substance of the above would be that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,86,032/- towards compensation with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified and the First Appeal preferred by the original claimants is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 8.2. Now, so far as the First Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company so far as challenging the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation is concerned, it is required to be noted that so far as the deceased was concerned, he was third party and at the time of accident, insurance policy was in force upto 31/1/2008 and the accident occurred on 31/1/2007 and subsequent to the date of accident, the Insurance Company deposited cheque of premium approximately after a period of one month and the same came to be dishonoured approximately after a period of one month from the date of occurring of the accident. The learned tribunal has not committed any error in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the original claimants. However, at the sametime, as the cheque issued towards the premium was subsequently dishonoured, it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the original owner after making payment of the compensation, as aforesaid, to the original claimants. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified and the First Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these appeals are partly allowed. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified and the First Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these appeals are partly allowed. The impugned Judgement and Award dated 19/3/2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Gandhinagar passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 353 of 2007 is hereby modified and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.7,86,032/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Pravinbhai Amaliyar with interest at the rate of 9%from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. First Appeal No. 466 of 2012 preferred by the original claimants is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to pay the amount of compensation to the original claimants, as aforesaid. Thereafter it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle namely original opponent No.2. To the aforesaid extent, the Judgement and Award passed by the learned tribunal is modified and the First Appeal No. 2037 of 2011 preferred by the Insurance Company is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Now the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, as aforesaid with the learned tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.