JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) has been filed against the award dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs.13,10,700/-. MFA Cross Objection has been filed against the impugned award dated 03.07.2013 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in this appeal and cross objection, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal and the cross objection briefly stated are that on 08.01.2012, deceased Iqubal was traveling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-09/BN-5193 on Sangao-Mangur road near Kasba Sangao village, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-23/M-6918 who was driving the said car in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle in which the deceased was traveling. In the aforesaid accident, the deceased who was aged about 55 years at the time of accident sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital. 3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased was Master of Arts Graduate from Shivaji University and was employed as Marketing Officer in Poly Organic India Company. It was pleaded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/-. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not enter appearance and was placed ex p arte. Respondent No.2 namely, Insurance Company filed the written statement in which the averments made in the claim petition were denied. It was pleaded that the deceased did not die on account of rash and negligent driving of car by its driver. A piece of contributory negligence was pleaded in the written statement. It was also stated that the claim for compensation is exorbitant and respondent No.1 has violated the conditions of the policy and driver did not have valid driving licence. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the issues. The claimants examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got exhibited the documents namely, Exs.P1 to P21. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the issues. The claimants examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got exhibited the documents namely, Exs.P1 to P21. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence. The Claims Tribunal vide award dated 03.07.2013 inter alia, held that the accident took place on 08.01.2012 in which the deceased who was traveling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle and on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he expired. The monthly income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.12,000/-and a sum of Rs.11,88,000/-was awarded on account of loss of dependency, whereas a sum of Rs.25,000/-and Rs.15,000/-was awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,10,700/-. The details of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants under the various heads read as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of dependency 11,88,000/- 2 Love and affection 25,000/- 3 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 4 Conveyance 15,050/- 5 Loss of Consortium 25,000/- 6 Loss of estate 25,000/- 7 Medical expenses 17,626/- Total 13,10,676/- Rounded off 13,10,700/- 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that even though the accident took place on 08.01.2012, however, the complaint was filed on 14.01.2012 and the spot panchanama was conducted on 13.01.2012. It was urged that the aforesaid facts go a long way to show that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. It is further submitted that the claimants had not produced any documents to prove Ex.P12, the Salary Certificate and therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in treating the monthly salary of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/-per month. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent as well as cross objectors stated that in order to prove Ex.P12, partner of the firm, namely one Rahid Umar Kaji was examined who identified the signature of U.B.Kaji on Ex.P12, who had issued Ex.P12. It is further submitted that no amount has been awarded to the claimants under the head of loss of future prospects and paltry sum of Rs.15,000/-has been awarded on account of amount of compensation. Therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. 8. It is further submitted that no amount has been awarded to the claimants under the head of loss of future prospects and paltry sum of Rs.15,000/-has been awarded on account of amount of compensation. Therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. 8. It is well settled in law that where testimony of a witness is not challenged in the cross-examination on a particular point, the same is taken to be accepted. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016)12 SCC 288 ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , held that the deceased is entitled to future prospects. Similarly in Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram and others, ACJ 2018 Page 2782, which has been held that an amount of Rs.50,000/-each has to be awarded to the widow and the minor child. 9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid well settled legal propositions, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. In the instant case admittedly, the deceased was Master of Arts Graduate. The claimants had produced Ex.P12 i.e. the Salary Certificate, which was signed by one of the partners namely U.B.Kaji. The claimants had examined PW2 namely Rahid Umar Kaji, who in the examination-in-chief identified the signature of U.B.Kaji and has stated that the aforesaid certificate has been issued under his signature. However, it is pertinent to mention here that no challenge to the aforesaid testimony of the witnesses has been made in the cross-examination. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the respondents have not been able to prove Salary Certificate namely, Ex.P12 is perverse and the same is set aside. 10. If the salary of the deceased is taken to be Rs.24,000/-per month, after deduction of the personal expenses to the extent of 1/3rd, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.18,000/-per month. If in the aforesaid amount, an amount of 10% on account of future prospects is added, the amount comes to Rs.18,480/-and if the multiplier of ‘11’ is adopted, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.24,39,360/-on account of loss of dependency. If in the aforesaid amount, an amount of 10% on account of future prospects is added, the amount comes to Rs.18,480/-and if the multiplier of ‘11’ is adopted, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.24,39,360/-on account of loss of dependency. In addition, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-each towards loss of consortium to the wife and the minor children. In addition, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.30,000/-towards conventional heads. 11. So far as submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that before lodging of the First Information Report, the spot panchanama was conducted and therefore, the vehicle has falsely implicated, suffice it to say that no such defence was taken before the Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid plea is being raised by the Insurance Company in an appeal and the same is not permissible in the absence of any pleadings in this regard. In the result, the aforesaid submission does not deserve acceptance. 12. In view of preceding analysis, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,49,360/-. In other words, an amount of compensation is enhanced by Rs.12,38,660/-. 13. Needless to state that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 14. To the aforesaid extent, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal as well as cross objections are disposed of.