JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sandip C. Shah appearing with Mr.Arpan C. Shah for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Sunil Parikh for the respondent no.2, learned advocate Mr.Sunit S. Shah for the respondent no.8, learned advocate Mr.Maulik J. Shelat for the respondent no.4, Mr.Palak H. Thakkar for the respondent no.6. Perused the record and proceedings. 2. The appellants herein are original applicants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.679 of 1992 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad (for short the Tribunal). The claimants are parents of the victim of the road accident namely Sanjay Rasiklal Shah. They have claimed of Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation because of accidental death of their son wherein the Tribunal has passed the impugned consolidated judgment in group cases with M.A.C.P. No.561 of 1992 and awarded an amount of Rs.1,23,000/- to the appellants towards compensation by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2001. 3. Learned advocates for both the sides have agreed that though there are in all eight respondents in appeal, the main issue is only with reference to the quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the claimants and that too by the respondents no.1 and 2 only because in the impugned judgment, Tribunal has already exonerated respondents no.3 to 8 from their liability and respondents no.1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal against such award, presence of other respondents are practically unwarranted. Therefore, as appeal is pending since the year 2006 and thereby, when record does not properly clarify the service of notice of all the respondents properly, when respondent no.2 – Insurance Company admit it's liability to pay compensation to the claimants as per the impugned award, the service of notice, if at all un-served to upon any of other respondents, the same is hereby dispensed with. 4. For the same reason, i.e.; issue is pertaining to only quantum of compensation, the minute details of accident and vehicles are not much material to be disclosed in this judgment so as to avoid repetition of such facts which is otherwise well described in the impugned award. 4. For the same reason, i.e.; issue is pertaining to only quantum of compensation, the minute details of accident and vehicles are not much material to be disclosed in this judgment so as to avoid repetition of such facts which is otherwise well described in the impugned award. However, it is only to be recollected here that victim was passenger in one of the vehicle which was dashed by another vehicle and by impugned judgment, the Tribunal has fix all the liability of vehicle which dashed with the vehicle wherein victim was traveling and thereby, victim becomes 3rd party to the offending driver and vehicle and therefore Insurance Company of such vehicle cannot be escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 5. Then the only issue remains is with reference to quantum of compensation that can be payable to the claimants. 6. The relevant discussion regarding calculation in impugned judgment is in paragraph no.23 wherein the Tribunal has categorically recorded that deceased victim was serving in the firm and was getting salary of Rs.1800/- and that case of death of the victim his father has got shocked and his health got deteriorated. The claimants have produced documentary evidence at Exh.66 to 68 to prove the activities of the firm where deceased was serving and got salary. The age of the victim was disclosed as 26 years at the relevant time and it is also clear that he is unmarried. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the yearly income of the victim as Rs.21,600/- and after deducting 2/3rd amount towards expenditure of the victim himself dependency of the claimants are considered as only Rs.7200/- per year and applying 15% as suitable multiplier, considered the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,08,000/- only. To such amount, the Tribunal has added Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation and Rs.5000 towards funeral expenditure and thereby, awarded of Rs.1,23,000/-. 7. Therefore, if we considered the settled legal position, it becomes clear that the Tribunal has committed an error on several count wise; i. Deducting 2/3rd amount of income towards personal expenses for single person and considering only 1/3rd amount of income for the livelihood of the parents, ii. Prospective income of the victim is not considering, iii. Not applying suitable multiplier considering the age of the victim, iv. Prospective income of the victim is not considering, iii. Not applying suitable multiplier considering the age of the victim, iv. Not awarding just and proper compensation on different conventional heads like loss of estate, loss of company, loss of pain and suffering etc. whatever is applicable considering the facts and evidence of the case. 8. However, at this stage, it cannot be ignored that original claim by the claimants is only for Rs.2,00,000/- and when claimant appellants have also restricted their appeal for remaining amount of Rs.77,000/- only, what is required to be verified is to the effect that what amount can be awarded to the claimants/appellants. 9. If we considered above situations, calculation would certainly results into the total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in following manner:- (a) if personal expenses is reduced 50%, loss of dependency would be Rs.10,800/- then loss of earning capacity would be Rs.1,62,000/- instead of Rs.1,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, (b) if prospective income at the rate of 50%, considering the age of the victim is taken then loss of earning would be Rs.2,83,500/-; considering the 50% personal expenses and it would be Rs.1,89,000/- even if 2/3rd income is deducted towards personal expenses. 10. Whereas, even if suitable multiplier only is modified by selecting 18, then also amount of Rs.1,29,600/- would be loss earning capacity even if deduct 2/3rd as personal expenses whereas it would be Rs.2,59,200/- if 50% is only deducted toward personal expenses. 11. To any such amount if we add reasonable amount towards different conventional heads which could not be less than Rs.70,000/-, atleast there would be additional award of almost Rs.50,000/- on such heads. Thereby, in any case, the impugned order needs to be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation in favour of the appellants. 12. Therefore, appeal needs to be allowed, considering that claimants are entitled to have additionally compensation of Rs.77,000/- because even if we considered prospective income at the rate of 50% applicants are entitled to Rs.1,89,000/- towards loss of earning capacity and if conventional has not increased then also total amount of compensation would come to Rs.2,04,000/- which may be rounded upto Rs.2,00,000/-. 13. Thereby, now, claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs.77,000/- towards compensation in addition to what is awarded by the impugned judgment with 6% interest from the date of application till he realization, impugned order is to be modified to that extent. 14. 13. Thereby, now, claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs.77,000/- towards compensation in addition to what is awarded by the impugned judgment with 6% interest from the date of application till he realization, impugned order is to be modified to that extent. 14. Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.