JUDGMENT Z. A. Haq, J -Heard. 2. Admit. 3. As the record and proceedings are received and considering the fact that the respondents/ claimants are widow, minor children and mother of the deceased, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 4. The appellant Western Coalfields Limited has filed this appeal to challenge the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the claim of the respondents/ claimants for grant of compensation is upheld. 5. According to the claimants, Dilip Raipure died in accident which occurred because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle (tanker) owned by the appellant WCL, the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and was earning about Rs.10, 000/- per month and supporting his family. 6. The Western Coalfields Limited opposed the claim of the claimants contending that Tanker No. 1267 was not involved in the accident, and it is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 7. The Tribunal conducted the trial and after appreciating the evidence on record held that Western Coalfields Limited is liable to pay amount of Rs.4, 10, 000/- towards compensation along with interest, to the claimants. 8. The award is challenged by the Western Coalfields Limited on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error by saddling the liability of payment of compensation on it, when the evidence brought on record by the claimant is not sufficient to establish that tanker No.1267 was involved in the accident and that the alleged accident in which Dilip died was because of rash and negligent driving it. The advocate for the appellant has pointed out the report which was lodged with the Police Station on 24th October, 2010 and has argued that in this report the Registration Number of the tanker is not given and it is only stated that the accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the dumper. It is submitted that the Tribunal has given too much weightage to the fact that chargesheet was filed against the driver of Tanker No.1267 for causing accident in which Deelip died and this chargesheet was not challenged by the driver of the tanker. It is prayed that the appeal be allowed and claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed. 9. The learned advocate for the respondents/claimants has supported the impugned award. It is prayed that the appeal be allowed and claim petition filed by the claimants be dismissed. 9. The learned advocate for the respondents/claimants has supported the impugned award. In addition, it is submitted that the respondents/claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation. Relying on the judgment given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) AIR SC 5157, it is urged that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.40, 000/- instead of Rs.25, 000/- to the respondent No.1widow towards loss of consortium and Rs.15, 000/- should have been granted under the head "loss of estate". It is further submitted that the Tribunal should have granted Rs.25, 000/- per head to each of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (minor children of the deceased) under the head "loss of love, affection, care and guidance". It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd amount from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and the deduction should have been 1/4th as the number of dependents is 5. The learned advocate has argued that even though cross appeal is not filed, this Court, while considering the appeal filed by the Western Coalfields Limited can examine as to whether the compensation granted to the claimants is just and proper and as it is not so, this Court can direct the appellant Western Coalfields Limited to pay enhanced amount of compensation on which the respondents/claimants would pay the court fees. 10. The advocate for the appellant has opposed the claim of the respondents/claimants for enhanced amount of compensation, however, he has not been able to point out that the submission made by the advocate for claimants for enhanced amount of compensation is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. 11. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, I find that the following points arise for consideration: i) Whether the Western Coalfields Limited has been able to show that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that tanker bearing registration No.1267, owned by Western Coalfields Limited, was involved in the accident in which Deelip Raipure died, is not correct? ii) Whether the respondents/claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation? 12. ii) Whether the respondents/claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation? 12. Though I find substance in the submission made by the advocate for the appellant that failure on the part of the driver of the tanker to challenge the chargesheet cannot support the claim of the claimants that the tanker was involved in the accident, it cannot be said that the conclusions of the Tribunal that tanker bearing registration No. 1267 was involved in the accident can be faulted with. Though the report which was lodged on 24th October, 2010 is silent as far as registration number of the vehicle is concerned, it is not disputed that after investigation, chargesheet was filed against Bhaurao Sahare who was driving the tanker bearing registration No.1267 at the time when the accident took place. I find that the claimants have discharged the preliminary burden of showing the involvement of tanker bearing registration No.1267 in the accident. The Western Coalfields Limited should have lead evidence to show that the tanker bearing registration No.1267 was not on the spot or in the vicinity of the spot where the accident took place. The Western Coalfields Limited could have proved this fact by producing log book and examining the concerned persons/officers working with Western Coalfields Limited. There is no explanation as to why Western Coalfields Limited has not discharged this burden by producing the documentary evidence i.e. the Log Book which is under its control. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error by concluding that the tanker bearing Registration No. 1267 was involved in the accident in which Deelip Raipure died. 13. The Tribunal has recorded finding that deceased Deelip Raipure was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and has considered his income as Rs.3, 000/- per month notionally. From the record, I find that there is no serious challenge to these findings recorded by the Tribunal. 14. Accepting the submission made by the advocate for the respondents/claimants that though cross appeal is not filed by the claimants, this Court can examine whether just and proper compensation is granted to the claimant or not. I find that the Tribunal has committed an error by deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses when there are 5 dependents. The Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th amount from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. I find that the Tribunal has committed an error by deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses when there are 5 dependents. The Tribunal should have deducted 1/4th amount from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Similarly, the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondents/claimants that the claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation under the heads loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love, affection, care and guidance, is required to be accepted. 15. Considering the facts of the case and the guidelines laid down in the judgment given in the case of Pranay Sethi, the amount of compensation payable to the respondents(claimants) is calculated as under : Annual income of the deceased : Rs.36, 000/­ Income of the deceased after considering 1/4th deduction : Rs.27, 000/­ 40% of the annual income towards loss of future prospects : Rs.10, 800/­ _________ Rs.37, 800/­ ======= i) Rs.37, 800 (x) 15 (Multiplier of 15) Rs.5, 67, 000 ii) Loss of Consortium Rs. 40, 000/­ iii) Loss of love, care & guidance (minors Resp.2 to 4) @ Rs.25, 000/­ each. Rs. 75, 000/­ iv) Loss of Estate Rs. 15, 000/­ v) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15, 000/­ _______________ TOTAL Rs.7, 12, 000/­ ========= Since the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.4, 10, 000/- to the claimants, the enhanced amount of compensation receivable by the claimants/respondents comes to Rs.3, 02, 000/- . 16. Hence, the following order: i) The appeal filed by Western Coalfields Limited is dismissed. However, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. ii) The appellant is liable to pay Rs.7, 12, 000/- ( Rs. Seven Lakhs Twelve Thousand only), inclusive of no fault liability amount, towards compensation to the respondents with interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal, within two months from today. iii) Out of the awarded amount, an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000/- ( Rs. Two Lakh only) each be invested in the name of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 till they attain majority and rest of the amount be paid to the respondent Nos.1 and 5 in equal proportion. iv) The respondents/claimants shall pay the deficit court fees. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. 2 to 4 till they attain majority and rest of the amount be paid to the respondent Nos.1 and 5 in equal proportion. iv) The respondents/claimants shall pay the deficit court fees. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Certified copy of this judgment shall be given and the amount shall be paid/ deposited only after the respondents/ claimants pay the deficit court fees. Order accordingly.