JUDGMENT : Akil Kureshi, J. Appellants are the original claimants. They have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.2017. 2. Brief facts are as under: On 12.12.2008, one Baldevbhai Kuvad was travelling in his maruti van when the vehicle collided with the Truck causing fatal injuries to the driver and bodily injuries to a passenger named Maheshbhai. The claimants are the dependents of deceased Baldevbhai. They are his widow, three children and aged parents. During the pendency of the proceedings, Baldevbhai's father died, however, on the date of the accident he was very much alive. 3. Baldevbhai was employed as Station Operator in GETCO. His salary slips for the months of May 2008 and November 2008 were produced. The Claims Tribunal took his income to be Rs. 12,801/- per month from his salary slip for the month of May 2008 produced at Exh 30. After deducting professional tax of Rs. 150/-, the Tribunal believed his monthly income to be Rs. 12,650/-, deducted 1/3rd for the personal expenditure and applied a multiplier of 14 to arrive at the dependency benefit of Rs. 18,41,840/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- under the conventional head and Rs. 1,38,000/- for his medical expenses and allowed total compensation of Rs. 21,34,840/-. 4. The Tribunal held that the deceased driver himself was negligent to the extent of 50% in causing the accident and therefore slashed down the compensation payable by half and awarded a total of Rs. 10,67,420/- to the claimants. 5. For challenging this award counsel for the appellant raised following contentions: (i) The Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50%; (ii) He submitted that the evidence on record would suggest that the one part of the road, on which the Maruti car was travelling, was closed down for repairs. The truck driver was coming from opposite direction. The Maruti car was on its correct side; (iii) The Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenditure of the deceased though dependents were six in number; (iv) The Tribunal wrongly referred to the salary slip Exh 30, it was for the month of May 2008. The truck driver was coming from opposite direction. The Maruti car was on its correct side; (iii) The Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenditure of the deceased though dependents were six in number; (iv) The Tribunal wrongly referred to the salary slip Exh 30, it was for the month of May 2008. However, recent salary slip for the month of November 2008, Exh 53 was available which showed that the deceased's monthly income was Rs. 14,552/-; (v) Counsel contended that looking to the evidence on record, future rise in income should have been 100% and not 30%, as granted by the Tribunal; (vi) The deceased survived between 11.12.2008 to 21.12.2008. He was under medical treatment. The Tribunal has granted no compensation for pain, shock and suffering. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company opposed the appeal and pointed out that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the conventional heads which is on the higher side. 7. We may first address the question of negligence. The FIR lodged by one Gordhan Govana Patel on the very date of the incident was exhibited. As per this FIR, it was the driver of the Maruti car who was driving the vehicle at a higher speed and collided with the truck at cross-roads. Secondly, this informant claimed to be himself a passenger in the very same vehicle. He had hitchhiked in the car. The panchnama of the scene of incident was also exhibited. It shows that the accident took place at the cross-roads. This panchnama does refer to a part of one of the roads meeting at the cross-roads having been closed for repairs. However, there is no reason to suggest that the accident took place on a junction of the road where part of the road was blocked for maintenance. 8. The claimant had examined one Nathalal Hirjibhai Jhalavadiya at Exh 116. He claimed to be an eyewitness. According to him, he was travelling on his motorcycle when in front of him the accident took place. He gave the version that the accident took place on a section of the road where the portion was not available for normal traffic. This witness, however, happens to be a panch-witness in the present panchnama. He denied having been a panch-witness and stated that the police had obtained his signature later on. 9. He gave the version that the accident took place on a section of the road where the portion was not available for normal traffic. This witness, however, happens to be a panch-witness in the present panchnama. He denied having been a panch-witness and stated that the police had obtained his signature later on. 9. For multiple reasons evidence of this witness cannot be relied. Firstly, he is a mere chance witness. He had not stated before any authority earlier that he was present when the accident took place. More importantly, he happened to be a witness of panchnama but disclaimed the same presumably because the evidence which he was now giving to the Court clashed with the recording of the panchnama. 10. What remains on record is an FIR and the panchnama which would show that the incident took place at cross-roads and not at a place where portion of the road was closed down. In absence of any other evidence, we must hold that drivers of both vehicles were negligent in causing the accident. However, the truck driver, being in charge of a heavier vehicle, must carry greater responsibility to drive his vehicle in such a manner that he does not endanger the life of others. It is undisputable that the heavier vehicle would have lesser maneuverability and breaking powers as compared to a lighter vehicle. We apportion the extent of negligency between the driver of the motor car and truck driver in the proportion of 30:70. 11. We have perused the pay slips of the deceased at Exh 30 and 53. Exh 53 being the pay slip for the month of November 2008, immediately preceding the accident, would have to be relied upon. This shows a gross salary of Rs. 14,522/- with a professional tax deduction of Rs. 200/-. The accident took place in the year 2008. There has to be some adjustment for the income tax liability. Taking monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 14,522/- or Rs. 14,322/- i.e. gross salary minus the professional tax, would make his yearly income Rs. 1,71,864/-. We round off his net income after deducting tax at Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum. 12. The Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd thereof for his personal expenditure. The claimants included his widow, three children and aged parents. Both the parents were aged more than 70 years on the date of the accident. 1,71,864/-. We round off his net income after deducting tax at Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum. 12. The Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd thereof for his personal expenditure. The claimants included his widow, three children and aged parents. Both the parents were aged more than 70 years on the date of the accident. There is nothing on the record to suggest that they had any other son or daughter to depend upon. The three children were in the age group of 18, 20 and 22 years respectively. The deceased thus had at least four dependents. 1/4th expenditure for himself would bring the net available for the family to Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency benefit would be Rs. 16,80,000/-. We add Rs. 75,000/- under the conventional head, Rs. 1,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for medical expenses is left unchanged. We add a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain, shock and suffering. The total would come to Rs. 19,93,000/-. Deducting 30% i.e. 5,97,900/-, the claimants would receive a total of Rs. 13,95,100/-. The claimants having received Rs. 10,67,420/- they will receive additional amount of Rs. 3,27,680/-. Additional amount granted under this appeal may be deposited by the opponents before the Claims Tribunal latest by 31.08.2018 with same interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal from the date of the claim petition till actual payment. 13. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.