JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant – New India Assurance Company Ltd., original opponent No.3 has filed First Appeal No.569 of 2005 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The appellants original claimants have filed First Appeal No.1504 of 2005 praying for enhancement of the award amount to Rs.7,50,000/with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereon. 2. It is the case of the appellants – original claimants that the original petitioner No.1 is the widow and the original petitioner No.2 is the minor child and original petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased, Umedsing Narsangji Jadeja, who lost his life in a vehicle accident which had taken place on 23.5.1994 at about 400 hours 600 K.M. away from village Chandrani towards Bhuj on Bhachau Bhuj via Dudhai road. It is the case of the original petitioners that the deceased was travelling in the truck bearing Registration No.GTY-6561 with his goods by paying fair and fraught. At the time of accident, the original opponent No.1 while driving the said truck during his employment with the original opponent No.2 rashly, recklessly, negligently and at an excessive speed lost the control over the steering and dashed and collided his truck with a stationary truck, from behind, which was parked on the left hand side of the road facing towards Bhuj, as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. As per case of the original petitioners the death of the deceased was the direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the original opponent No.1. In respect of the unfortunate accident FIR was lodged against the opponent No.1 and the police has submitted chargesheet against the original opponent No.1. 3. Heard Mr.Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Jenil M. Shah, learned advocate for Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in First Appeal No.569 of 2005 and Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate for Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate for appellants and Mr.Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent No.3 in First Appeal No.1504 of 2005. 4. Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and against the provisions of law. 4. Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and against the provisions of law. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the award in view of the judgment pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Asha Rani and others reported in 2003 (1) ACJ 1. He has submitted that “goods carriage” would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use “solely for the carriage of goods”. He has submitted that carrying of passengers in a “goods carriage” is not contemplated under the 1988 Act. Therefore Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the award even it if is accepted that the deceased was travelling in truck bearing No.GTY-6561 with his goods by paying fare and freight. He has submitted that as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the person travelling as a gratuitous passenger is not required to be covered. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that truck No.GTY-6561 being goods carriage vehicle was expressly and impliedly not covered by a permit to carry any passenger. 5. In support of his above submissions he has relied on the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of (1) First Appeal No.2291 of 2003 dated 29.10.2015 (2) First Appeal No.1143 of 2005 dated 17.12.2015 (3) First Appeal No.3440 of 2005 dated 7.8.2015 (4) First Appeal No.5101 of 2001 dated 21.10.2015 (5) First Appeal No.2121 of 2008 dated 18.11.2013. Lastly, he has submitted that the award requires to be modified as prayed for. 6. Mr.Jenil M. Shah, learned advocate for Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – original claimants has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of Rs.4,73,056/-only. He has submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,000/. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the documents and material produced on record. 7. He has submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,000/. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the documents and material produced on record. 7. He has submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have held that when the deceased was aged 31 years and it was proved to be working as a part time Guardsman in Border Wing and also as an agriculturist and earning Rs.1,584/-per month as per affidavit at Ex.34 and income certificates at Ex.40 to 43, which are also indicating clear future rise in the said income of the deceased, therefore this is a fit case to award at least Rs.7,50,000/. 8. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the deceased from agricultural operations to the tune of about Rs.50,000/-per annum while assessing the income of the deceased. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing and considering the prospective income of the deceased to be only Rs.4000/-instead of Rs.4500/-per month plus income from agricultural operation. 9. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased which ought not have been more than 2/7th even on units method basis. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the annual dependency loss to the claimants to be only Rs.32,004/-which is against the evidence on record. He has submitted that when the deceased was aged 31 years as on the date of the accident the proper multiplier to be adopted can never be less than 20 instead of 14. 10. He has submitted that when the original opponents No.1 and 2 have not at all contested before the learned Tribunal and when the original opponent No.3 has not led any evidence at all before the learned Tribunal and when the original opponent No.3 has not obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act as required by the law the claim of the original claimants as established through materials on record ought to have been accepted by the learned Tribunal. 11. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.20,000/only towards conventional amount which ought to have been awarded at Rs.50,000/at least. 11. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.20,000/only towards conventional amount which ought to have been awarded at Rs.50,000/at least. He has submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of only 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 12. He has submitted to consider; Rs.4000 (monthly prospective income) – (less) Rs.1,333 one third (1/3) for personal expenses = Rs.2667/- Rs. 2667*12*16 = Rs.5,12,064/- Conventional amount of Rs.70,000/(loss estate Rs.15000/, loss of consortium Rs.40000/and Rs.15000 funeral expenses) 13. In view of above submissions he has relied on the decisions in the case of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Baljit Kaur, reported in 2004 (0) AIJEL-SC 19374 (2) 2013 (0) AIJEL-SC 52530, Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Saju P. Paul (3) 2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 59808, Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kr.Singh. Lastly he has submitted that total amount of compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- is required to be awarded to the original claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and costs. 14. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length and in great details. I have perused the averments made in the memo of appeal. Before the Tribunal the original claimants produced sufficient evidence regarding income and age of the deceased which is just and proper. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the claimant. The multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. Hence this Court is inclined to award multiplier of 16 instead of 14 (awarded by the Tribunal) as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Keeping that in mind, this Court is of the view that multiplier of 16 is just and proper. 15. In the result, First Appeal No.569 of 2005 is dismissed. The First Appeal No.1504 of 2005 is partly allowed. However, considering the facts of the case deduction towards personal expenses at the rate of ; Rs.4000 (monthly prospective income) – (less) Rs.1,333 one third (1/3) for personal expenses = Rs.2667/- Rs. 2667*12*16 = Rs.5,12,064/- Conventional amount of Rs.25,000/(loss estate Rs.10000/, loss of consortium Rs.10000/and Rs.5000 funeral expenses) Hence total award comes to Rs.5,37,064/. The learned Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.4,73,056/. 2667*12*16 = Rs.5,12,064/- Conventional amount of Rs.25,000/(loss estate Rs.10000/, loss of consortium Rs.10000/and Rs.5000 funeral expenses) Hence total award comes to Rs.5,37,064/. The learned Tribunal has passed the award of Rs.4,73,056/. Therefore present claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.64,008/along with 9% from the date of application filed before the Tribunal. The original opponents are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Upon deposit of the amount the same shall be disbursed to the original claimants on proper verification. Thus the award deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 1. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.