JUDGMENT : M. R. Shah, J. - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana passed in MACP No. 792 of 2005, by which, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said Claim Petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- in all towards compensation for the death of deceased Shailesh Patel (after deducting 40% towards contributory negligent of the deceased, original claimants have preferred present First Appeal. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the deceased Shailesh Patel died in a vehicular accident is not disputed. That by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has held deceased Shailesh Patel contributory negligent to the extent of 40%. That on appreciation of evidence and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has assessed the future loss of income at Rs. 3000/- per month I. . e Rs. 36000/- p. a. and thereafter after applying multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,40,000/- towards loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,70,000/- towards medical expenses. The learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 15000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. That thereafter, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses. After deducting 40% towards contributory negligent of the deceased, the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded Rs. 5,70,000/- under different heads towards compensation for the death of the deceased with 7. 5% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 2. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in so far as holding the deceased Shailesh Patel contributory negligent to the extent of 40% and awarding Rs. 5,70,000/- only towards compensation, original claimants have preferred present First Appeal. 3. Shri J M Barot, learned advocate for the appellants - original claimants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 40%. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate for the appellants that while holding the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 40% non reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the learned Tribunal. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate for the appellants that while holding the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 40% non reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that considering the panchnama of the place of accident which is produced at Exh. 32, it cannot be said that deceased was at all negligent for the accident. 3. 1. It is further submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the loss of dependency at Rs. 3000/- per month. It is submitted that even if the income of the deceased is considered at Rs. 3000/- in that case also, future prospects was required to be considered. It is submitted that even considering the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance company vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors, 2017 3 GLH 536 , at least 25% of Rs. 3000/- per month is required to be added towards future prospects. It is submitted that therefore, the prospective income would come to Rs. 3750/- per month. It is submitted that looking to the number of claimants only 1/4th was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Barot, learned advocate for the appellants that considering the fact that the deceased died after a period of two and half months and till he died, he was in the hospital / taking medical treatment. It is submitted that therefore, the original claimant shall be entitled to at least Rs. 1 lakh towards pain, shock and suffering. 3. 2. It is further submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head. It is further submitted by Shri Barot learned advocate for the appellants that as the deceased remained in hospital for approximately two and half months, the original claimants shall also be entitled to attended charges which has not been awarded by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 100/- per day towards attended charges. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7. 5%. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 100/- per day towards attended charges. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7. 5%. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit and allow the present appeal. 4. Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Insurance company has tried to oppose the present appeal and has supported the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 40%. However, is not in a position to satisfy the Court on what basis and the evidence, learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was contributory negligent to the extent of 40%. 4. 1. He has further submitted that as such learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income at Rs. 3000/- per month, more particularly, in absence of any other documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. 4. 2. It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned advocate for the Insurance Company that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the original claimants may be awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal and / or modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal to the aforesaid extent only. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have considered and gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. We have reappreciated the entire evidence on record. 5. 1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal has held the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 40%. However, considering the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no reasons whatsoever has been assigned by the learned Tribunal while holding the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 40%. Considering the panchnama of the place of the accident produced at Exh. 32, we are of the firm opinion that the deceased cannot be said to be negligent at all in causing accident. Considering the panchnama of the place of the accident produced at Exh. 32, we are of the firm opinion that the deceased cannot be said to be negligent at all in causing accident. Under the circumstances, as such findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 40% cannot be said to be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Now, so far as quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,70,000/- towards future loss of dependency. While awarding future loss of income / dependency, the learned Tribunal has assessed and considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month, which in absence of any other evidence on record, can be said to be just and proper and same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. Under the circumstances, while awarding future loss of income, the income of the deceased is required to be considered / assessed at Rs. 3000/- per month. That at the time of accident, deceased was aged 42 years of age. Under the circumstances and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi 25% of Rs. 3000/- is required to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, the prospective income would come to Rs. 3750/- per month. Considering number of claimants, only th is required to be be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased at Rs. 937. 50. Thus, loss of dependency would come to Rs. 2813/- per month. As the deceased was aged 42 years of age, multiplier of 14 is required to be applied. Under the circumstances, original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 4,72,584/- towards loss of dependency. 6. 1. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 3,70,000/- towards medical expenses as awarded by learned Tribunal. 6. 3. Considering the fact that deceased remained in hospital after the accident and was taking medical treatment for approximately two and half months. The original claimants shall also be entitled at least Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering instead of Rs. 15000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 6. 4. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 7500/- towards attended charges. 6. 5. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. The original claimants shall also be entitled at least Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering instead of Rs. 15000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 6. 4. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 7500/- towards attended charges. 6. 5. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi . 6. 6. Considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p. a. from the date of claim petition till its realization. 7. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that original claimant shall be entitled to total Rs. 10,20,084/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Shailesh Patel. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent and the present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana passed in MACP No. 792 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to total sum Rs. 10,20,084/- with 9% interest from the claim petition till realization. The enhanced amount of compensation to be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from today. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.