JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 488 of 2005 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,44,000/- only towards the compensation for the death of the deceased who at the relevant time was aged only 21 years of age, the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has also preferred the present Cross- Objection mainly contending inter alia that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have held the deceased contributory negligent to some extent. 2. At the outset it is required to be noted that, that the deceased died in a vehicular accident is not in dispute. It is required to be noted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years of age only. He met with an accident while returning after giving interview. At the time of accident, he was studying in the last year of B.Tech (Textile Engineering). Learned Tribunal has awarded future loss of income considering/assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. That on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that the deceased was on the motor cycle and the truck involved in the accident dashed from behind, the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the truck involved in the accident sole negligent for the accident. That by the impugned judgement and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,44,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased under different heads as under: Sr. No. Amount of Compensation (Rs.) Head 1 2,16,250/- Future loss of income 2 25,000/- Loss to Estate/Expectation of Life 3 3,000/- Funeral Expenses Total Rs.2,44,000/- Total : Rupees Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand 3. No. Amount of Compensation (Rs.) Head 1 2,16,250/- Future loss of income 2 25,000/- Loss to Estate/Expectation of Life 3 3,000/- Funeral Expenses Total Rs.2,44,000/- Total : Rupees Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand 3. Shri Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants – original claimants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the deceased, at the time of accident, was in the last year of B.Tech and was likely to become Textile Engineer and therefore he was having a bright future, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month only. It is submitted that looking to the young age of 21 years and that he was in the last year of B.Tech and was likely to become Textile Engineer and therefore looking to the bright future, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future loss of income assessing the income atleast at Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.28,000/- only under conventional head and funeral expenses. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in 2017 (3) GLH 536, it is submitted that the original claimants shall be entitled to at least Rs.30,000/- under conventional head and funeral expenses. It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the driver of the truck involved in the accident so negligent. It is submitted that the driver who can be said to be the best witness has not stepped into the witness box and therefore adverse inference is required to be drawn. It is submitted, therefore, that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the driver of the truck involved in the accident so negligent. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the appeal preferred by the claimants and has requested to dismiss the Cross-Objections preferred by the Insurance Company. 4. It is submitted, therefore, that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the driver of the truck involved in the accident so negligent. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the appeal preferred by the claimants and has requested to dismiss the Cross-Objections preferred by the Insurance Company. 4. Shri H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and as at the time of accident, the deceased was not employed and he was in the last year of B.Tech, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding future loss of income assessing the income of deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month. It is further submitted by Shri Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company that according to the driver’s statement in the complaint/FIR, the deceased applied the brake all of a sudden and therefore the truck dashed with the motor-cycle which was ahead of the truck. It is submitted that therefore to some extent the deceased also can be said to be negligent for the accident. It is submitted therefore the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of the truck sole negligent of the accident. Making above submissions, it is submitted the dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellants and allow the Cross- Objections preferred by the respondent – Insurance Company. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused and considered the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 21 years of age only. It has also come on record that the accident had occurred while he was returning after giving interview for the post of Textile Engineer. However, it has come on record that at the time of the accident he was in the last year of B.Tech. It has also come on record that the accident had occurred while he was returning after giving interview for the post of Textile Engineer. However, it has come on record that at the time of the accident he was in the last year of B.Tech. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the educational qualification for the post of Textile Engineer and considering the fact that the deceased was having a very bright future the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the future loss of income considering the income at Rs.2,000/- per month only. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the income of the deceased for the purpose of future loss of income is assessed/considered at Rs.5,000/- per month, it can be said to be just compensation. Therefore, the income of the deceased for the purpose of future loss of income is considered at Rs.5,000/- per month as the deceased was aged 21 years of age considering the recent 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 loss prospects. Therefore, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,000/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, one-half is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. Under the circumstances, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.7,56,000/- towards future loss of income/loss of dependency. 6. The original claimants shall also be entitled to a total sum of Rs.30,000/- under conventional head and funeral expenses as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi And Others (Supra). To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified. Under the circumstances, the present appeal preferred by the original claimants is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgement and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified. Under the circumstances, the present appeal preferred by the original claimants is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. Now so far as the Cross-Objection preferred by the Insurance Company and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the driver of the truck involved in the accident sole negligent are concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the driver who can be said to be the best witness has not entered into the witness box. Under the circumstances, adverse inference is required to be drawn. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the complaint/FIR given by the driver is concerned, the same has not been proved. The contents of the FIR are also not proved. Under the circumstances, no reliance can be placed upon the FIR which is not proved. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in holding the driver of the truck involved in the accident sole negligent. Under the circumstances, the Cross-Objection by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present First Appeal preferred by the original claimants succeeds in part. The impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 19.11.2010 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 488 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.7,86,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of claim petition till realisation. The appeal preferred by the original claimants is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. For the reasons stated above, Cross-Objection preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. Now the respondent – Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.