JUDGMENT S.H. VORA, J. 1. Present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") is at the instance of appellant - original opponent No.2 - National Insurance Company Ltd - insurer of truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-X-3957 for the proceedings u/s 166 of the Act on one hand and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 - legal heirs and representatives of deceased Ranjitsinh Vaghela have preferred cross objection against the judgment and award dated 16.2.2008 passed by the learned MACT (Aux.-1), Gandhinagar, thereby allowing the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.11,20,300/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realization plus proportionate costs. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant - original opponent No.2 - insurance company and the claimants have come up with the present appeal and cross objection on the issue of quantum and extent of negligency of the drivers of both the vehicles, namely, truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-X-3957 and jeep bearing registration No.GBZ-7516. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. DB Mehta for the appellant - insurance company, learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the respondents - original claimants and learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 i.e. insured and insurer of the jeep. 4. Briefly stated, the claimants are legal heirs and representatives of deceased Ranjitsinh Vaghela, who met with an accident while driving the offending jeep while going from Siddhpur to Unjha, which dashed with the offending truck at about 4:00 a.m. on 9.5.1997. According to the claimants, the deceased was driving the jeep in a moderate speed by observing the traffic rules and on correct side of road. According to the claimants, when deceased reached near the place of accident, one truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-X3957 was going ahead and the driver of the truck, without giving any signal, applied break suddenly and at that time, the jeep came from behind and dashed with the truck and the impact was so grave that the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was serving as Police Inspector and drawing monthly salary of Rs.6750/- and was earning Rs.1250/- per month out of agricultural work as the deceased was having agricultural land and hence, his aggregate income was stated to be at Rs.8000/- per month. According to the claimants, the deceased was serving as Police Inspector and drawing monthly salary of Rs.6750/- and was earning Rs.1250/- per month out of agricultural work as the deceased was having agricultural land and hence, his aggregate income was stated to be at Rs.8000/- per month. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 43 years and the truck and the jeep were insured with the appellant and the respondent No.6 at the relevant time of accident. On all such premises, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.25 lakh with interest and costs before the learned Tribunal. 5. There is no dispute about the age of the victim at the time of incident being 43 years and after considering the submissions made at bar and salary slips of the deceased at Exhs.51 and 52 and village form Nos.7/12 and 8A Exhs.26 to 45, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8000/- per month. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant - insurance company and learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for the respondents - original claimants vehemently challenged the negligency of respective drivers of the offending vehicles, namely, truck and the jeep. According to learned advocate for the appellant, the driver of the jeep is more negligent and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased dashing with the tree and therefore, the deceased is contributed much more than that of the driver of the alleged truck going ahead. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi by way of cross objections assailed the findings of the Tribunal attributing 25% of negligency to the deceased. 8. Before quantum part is considered, it is necessary to decide the issue of negligency and its accountability. It is a matter of fact that the driver of the offending truck has not stepped into witness box and therefore, it can be observed that the driver of the offending vehicle, who is best evidence to explain the situation, has been withheld. Thus, the best evidence, who is withheld and who can explain the cause of accident, is kept away from the witness box without any legal and valid reason. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn. We have carefully examined the panchnama of scene of accident produced on record at Exh.21. Thus, the best evidence, who is withheld and who can explain the cause of accident, is kept away from the witness box without any legal and valid reason. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn. We have carefully examined the panchnama of scene of accident produced on record at Exh.21. It appears that there were no reflectors on the rear side of the offending truck at the time of accident as required under Rule 213 of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules, 1959. Similarly, we have also examined the statement of the driver of the offending truck produced at Exh.46, wherein the truck driver has categorically stated that he was sleeping in the truck and while he woke up in the morning, he found that one jeep had dashed to the rear side of the truck. So, it is clear that there is no any specific evidence worth the name coming on record whether at the time of accident, the truck was moving or stationary. But, in any case, it transpires that there were no reflectors on the rear side of the truck and in absence of best evidence from the side of the driver of the offending truck, it cannot be said that the driver of the jeep is not at all negligent or responsible in occurrence of the accident. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we thought it fit to blame heavier vehicle to great extent as it was driven without reflectors on the rear side of the truck and accordingly, we hold that the driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 85%, whereas the deceased was negligent to the extent of 15%. 9. Now coming to the quantum part, it appears that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 43 years and he was earning Rs.8000/- per month, as aforesaid. Considering the age of the deceased, 30% of his income can be added as prospective income and dependency loss would come to Rs.10,400/- (Rs.8000/- + 2400 being 30% of Rs.8000/-). From this amount, 1/3rd as personal expenditure of the deceased requires to be deducted which will come to Rs.6933/- (Rs.7000/- rounded figure) (Rs.10,400/- - Rs.3467/- being 1/3rd of Rs.10,400/-). Looking to the age of the deceased, appropriate multiplier will be 14. Thus, the annual dependency loss would come to Rs.11,76,000/- (Rs.7000/- x 12 x 14). From this amount, 1/3rd as personal expenditure of the deceased requires to be deducted which will come to Rs.6933/- (Rs.7000/- rounded figure) (Rs.10,400/- - Rs.3467/- being 1/3rd of Rs.10,400/-). Looking to the age of the deceased, appropriate multiplier will be 14. Thus, the annual dependency loss would come to Rs.11,76,000/- (Rs.7000/- x 12 x 14). In the total amount of Rs.11,76,000/-, an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards consortium and loss of estate as per principles in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 is required to be added and thus, total amount of compensation would come to the tune of Rs. 12,46,000/- and after deducting 15% nenegency of the deceased, the net amount would come to Rs.10,59,100/- (Rs.12,46,000/- - Rs.1,86,900/- being 15% negligency). 10. Thus, in view of the aforementioned findings and upon re-appreciation of evidence, we hold that the original claimants are entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.10,59,100/- with 9% interest from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. Accordingly, the judgment and award stands modified. 11. It is stated at bar that the claimants have received the awarded amount as per the impugned award and therefore, in view of that position, the claimants are directed to refund the amount of Rs.61,200/- to the appellant - insurance company within four weeks from today, failing which, the appellant will be entitled to recover the amount from the original claimants in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, present first appeal and cross objection stand disposed of, as aforesaid with no order as to costs. R & P be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal forthwith.