JUDGMENT : S.H. Vora, J. Learned advocate for the appellant seeks permission to delete respondent No.3 in First Appeal No.2138 of 2007 and respondent No.6 in First Appeal No.3150 of 2010. Permission is granted. 2. Present First Appeal No.2138 of 2007 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is at the instance of appellant - original opponent No.2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Cross Objection No.79 of 2008 under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of original claimants of MACP No.1348 of 1998 whereby the parents of the deceased - Rajeshbhai Paul Saini have preferred Cross Objection against the judgment and award dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned MACT (Auxi.), F.T. Court No.3, Kheda at Nadiad, thereby allowing the claim petition in part and awarded sum of Rs.13,97,000/- against original opponents along with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the amount is deposited with the Tribunal. Similarly, the appellant of First Appeal No.3150 of 2010 has challenged the award passed by the learned MACT (Main), Kheda at Nadiad thereby allowing the claim petition in part and awarded sum of Rs.29,91,156/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till realization and cost. It is required to be noted here that claimant Nos.3 and 4 of MACP No.1302 of 1998 have preferred Cross Objection No.223 of 2011 in First Appeal No.3150 of 2010, but vide order dated 07.12.2011, it appears that the said claimants have not pressed the Cross Objection and accordingly, the Cross Objection came to be disposed of. 3. Briefly stated, the claimants are legal heirs and representative of deceased Rajeshbhai Saini and Jitendrabhai. At the relevant time, on 05.06.1998, deceased Jitendrabhai was pillion rider, whereas, deceased Rajesbhai was driving scooter bearing registration No.GJ-7N-8410, were proceeding from Nadiad to Vidhyanagar and near Village Gutal, dashed with truck bearing registration No.WB-23-7195 and both the deceased person suffered injuries and succumbed to death. 4. Legal heirs and representative of both the deceased persons preferred the petitions for compensation under section 166 of the Act inter-alia claiming compensation amount from the insured and insurer of the offending truck bearing registration No.WB-23- 7195. 4. Legal heirs and representative of both the deceased persons preferred the petitions for compensation under section 166 of the Act inter-alia claiming compensation amount from the insured and insurer of the offending truck bearing registration No.WB-23- 7195. Legal heirs and representative of deceased Rajeshbhai claimed sum of Rs.31 lakhs, whereas, legal heirs and representatives of deceased Jitendrabhai claimed compensation of Rs.50 lakhs from the original opponents jointly and severally. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar appearing for the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, learned advocate Mr. H.M.Parikh appearing for the original claimants of MACP No.1348 of 1998 and learned advocate Mr. Paresh Darji appearing for original claimants of MACP No.1302 of 1998. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence on record awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.13,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and cost and sum of Rs.29,91,556/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and cost to the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Rajeshbhai and Jitendrabhai respectively. 7. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties took us through the record and proceedings of learned Tribunal and on re-appreciation of evidence, we have noticed that the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/3rd personal expenses of deceased Rajeshbhai and similarly, considering the age of deceased Rajeshbhai being 26 years, the learned Tribunal committed error in applying 8 multiplier. It is a matter of fact that the deceased Rajeshbhai was unmarried at the relevant time of accident. 8. Before quantum part of award is considered, it is necessary to consider the appeal on the issue of negligency aspect. It is the case of the appellant - Insurance Company that deceased Rajeshbhai was driving scooter in rash and careless manner and considering Panchnama of scene of accident - Exh.25, it would transpire that offending truck was on correct side of the road and while overtaking camel cart, he dashed with the offending truck coming from opposite side. Except Panchnama of scene of accident at Exh.25, no any other evidence on record has been adduced by the appellant - Insurance Company. 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 the best witness to explain the situation, has been withheld. 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 the best witness to explain the situation, has been withheld. Thus, the best evidence, which is withheld and which can explain the cause of accident, is kept away from the witness box without any legal and valid reason. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly drawn adverse inference. However, we have carefully examined Panchnama of scene of accident produced at Exh.25 and having regard to width of the road and position of vehicles after accident, we have not found any break mark at the place of scene of accident. So the sole piece of evidence in the form of Exh.25 cannot be relied so as to contribute any negliency to the deceased Rajeshbhai, more so, as pleaded by the Insurance Company in its written statement about the action of the deceased Rajeshbhai to overtake camel cart leading to the collusion with the offending truck coming from opposite direction remained unproved. So in absence of any factual and material evidence on record, despite its availability, we have thought it fit to blame heavier vehicle to the fullest extent. We do not find any evidence to infer negligency or carelessness on the part of the deceased Rajeshbhai in contributing accident in question and therefore, there is no substance on the issue of negligency to be contributed to the deceased Rajeshbhai and therefore, both the Appeals deserve to be rejected at threshold. Now we are left with the Cross Objection filed by the original claimants of MACP No.1348 of 1998. 9. Now coming to the quantum part of the amount awarded to the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Rajeshbhai since the challenge to the award made by both the sides viz. Insurance Company and original claimants by way of Cross Objection, we would like to address whether the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper in view of facts and evidence on record. 10. Undisputedly, at the time of accident, deceased was aged 26 years and he was earning Rs.15, 220/- per month as per salary certificate produced at Exh.42. 10. Undisputedly, at the time of accident, deceased was aged 26 years and he was earning Rs.15, 220/- per month as per salary certificate produced at Exh.42. From this amount, 10% (i.e. Rs.1522/-) towards tax is required to be deducted and after deduction, the amount would come to Rs.13,698/- (Rs.13700/- rounded figure) per month salary receivable at the hands of the deceased. Considering the age of deceased, 50% of his income can be added as prospective income, which will come to Rs.20,550/- (Rs.13,700/- + Rs.6850/-). As deceased was unmarried, 1/2 amount towards personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted and not 1/3rd as deducted by the learned Tribunal and after deduction, the amount would come to Rs.10,275/- per month (Rs.20,500/- divide by 1/2). Looking to the age of the deceased, appropriate multiplier will be 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.22,19,400/- (Rs.10,275/- x 12 x 18) towards the dependency loss. In the said amount of Rs.22,19,400/- an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards consortium and loss of estate as per principles in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Pranay Shetty, (2017) 16 SCC 680 is required to be added and thus, total amount of compensation would come to the tune of Rs.22,49,400/- (Rs.22,19,400/- + Rs.30,000). So accordingly, the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and enhanced by Rs.8,52,400/- (Rs.22,49,400/- minus Rs.13,97,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal). 11. Thus, in view of aforementioned findings and upon re-appreciation of evidence, we hold that the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company deserve to be dismissed, whereas, the Cross Objection preferred by the original claimants of MACP No. 1348 of 1998 in First Appeal No.2138 of 2007 is required to be partly allowed. 12. Accordingly, we hold that the original claimants of MACP No.1348 of 1998 are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.22,49,400/- with cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the amount is deposited with learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned MACT (Auxi.), FT Court No.3, Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No.1348 of 1998 stands modified as aforesaid. 13. Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company are dismissed and Cross Objection preferred by the original claimants is allowed as aforesaid. Consequently, the Civil Application stands disposed of. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned MACT (Auxi.), FT Court No.3, Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No.1348 of 1998 stands modified as aforesaid. 13. Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company are dismissed and Cross Objection preferred by the original claimants is allowed as aforesaid. Consequently, the Civil Application stands disposed of. The Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs.8,52,400/- with cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. before the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Record and Proceedings be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.