JUDGMENT : V.P. PATEL, J. 1. The appellant - original opponent No.3 has filed this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V.Act”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 16.1.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Asstt.) Court No.5, Ankleshwar in M.A.C.P. No. 886 of 2013 (New). 2. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company. Admit. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate waives service of admission on behalf of Opponent Nos. 3 to 5. 3. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that he has challenged the judgment and award only on the ground of quantum. Both the learned advocates have submitted that notice of admission to Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the vehicle is not necessary. At the request of learned advocate for the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. Submission of the parties :- Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal are against law, facts and weight of evidence on record. 4.1 He also submits that the inferences drawn and conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal are erroneous and against the provision of law. 4.2 He also submits that learned Tribunal has seriously erred in awarding Rs. 25,13,896/- with interest @ 9% and cost. 4.3 He also submits that learned Tribunal was required to consider the provision of Section 149(1) along with Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code and accordingly it ought to have awarded interest @ 7% only relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Dharampal Vs. UPSRTC reported in (2008) 12 SCC 2008. 4.4 He further submits that learned Tribunal materially erred while deciding the issue of negligence as the deceased rider of the bicycle was trying to cross the road though the jeep was coming from the other side of the road which was properly visible at the place of the accident. 4.5 He further submits that learned Tribunal further erred in discarding the issue of driving licence of the driver of the jeep as it was proved on record by appropriate evidence that driver of the jeep was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of the accident to ply commercial vehicle. 4.5 He further submits that learned Tribunal further erred in discarding the issue of driving licence of the driver of the jeep as it was proved on record by appropriate evidence that driver of the jeep was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of the accident to ply commercial vehicle. 4.6 He further submits that learned Tribunal ought to have absolved the liability of the insurance company of the jeep when it has found that the driver of the jeep was not holding valid driving licence. He also submits that learned Tribunal ought not to have mechanically followed the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 . 4.7 He further submits that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that merely having endorsement of LMV in the licence ipso facto such holder of driving licence would have authorization to ply commercial /transport vehicle in view of various provisions of M.V.Act. 4.8 He further submits that learned Tribunal has materially erred in interpreting the ratio laid down by the Apex Court rendered in case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2016 ACJ 1008 (SC) and overlooked the relevant provision of commercial vehicle as available in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4.9 He further submits that learned Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 14,920/- after deducting Rs. 80/- from the monthly gross salary of the deceased of Rs. 15,000/- 4.10. He further submits that learned Tribunal ought to have deducted Rs. 1,122/- towards washing allowance and Rs. 80/- towards professional tax as the same would not be part of estate of the legal heirs of the deceased since the deceased would consume the perk of washing allowance. 4.11 He further submits that learned Tribunal erred in considering 30% prospective income of the deceased though the claimants failed to adduce cogent documentary evidence on record that the deceased was having permanent job at his employer's place and learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 22,43,248/- with interest @ 7% only and proportionate cost. 5. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the respondents - original claimants submitted that the impugned judgment and award is correct in view of law and facts. There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 22,43,248/- with interest @ 7% only and proportionate cost. 5. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the respondents - original claimants submitted that the impugned judgment and award is correct in view of law and facts. There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation and requested to dismiss the appeal. 6. Merits of the Case :- The facts of the case is required to be narrated. It is stated in the claim petition. That on 9.12.2009 at about 7.15 in the evening the deceased drove the bicycle to go at his residence. At that time, the driver of the jeep bearing Registration No. GJ-16-V-9087 by rash and negligent driving dashed against the vehicle being plied by the deceased Ramdas Tulsidas Shirshath, causing fatal injuries to him which ultimately resulted into he is dead. 6.1 The claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. for getting compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and also held that the claimants are entitled to recover Rs. 25,13,896/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Thirteen thousand Eight Hundred Ninty Six only) from the present opponents who are jointly and severally liable to pay awarded amount to the claimants with the proportionate cost and with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the claim petitions till realization. 6.2 The appellant has prayed for the following main reliefs :- “1. The learned Tribunal erred in considering 30% prospective income of the deceased though the claimants failed to adduce cogent documentary evidence on the record that the deceased was having permanent job at his employer's place. 2. The learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.22,43,248/- with interest @ 7% only and proportionate cost. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant has confined his arguments only on the ground of quantum. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was serving as Plant Operator . He was earning Rs. 15,300/- per month. The claimants have produced pay sleep of September 2009 and October, 2009 at Exh. 34 and 35 respectively. It shows that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the salary of the deceased after deducting professional tax etc. Learned Tribunal has considered Rs. 14,547/-. 8. He was earning Rs. 15,300/- per month. The claimants have produced pay sleep of September 2009 and October, 2009 at Exh. 34 and 35 respectively. It shows that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the salary of the deceased after deducting professional tax etc. Learned Tribunal has considered Rs. 14,547/-. 8. Learned advocate for both the parties have agreed that the amount of rs.13,778/- be counted as monthly income of the deceased . 9. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased i.e. 42 years at the time of accident. Both the learned advocates have agreed to deduct 1/4th amount of income spent by the deceased on himself as well as 30% of prospective income to be calculated as per the Judgment of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Shethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Considering the monthly income of Rs. 13,798/- x 30% prospective income = Rs.17,937/- against the amount of 1/4th i.e. Rs. 4484/- deduction on amount spent by the deceased on himself. Annual Dependency benefit Rs.1,61,436/-(Rs.17,937-Rs.4484= Rs.13453/- x 12 months = Rs.1,61,436/-). Both the parties have agreed to use multiplier 14 years for calculations of the compensation. The amount of Rs.22,60,104/- (Rs. 1,61,436x 14 = Rs.22,60,104/-) will be loss of dependency benefit and claimants are entitled for that purpose. The claimants are also entitled conventional amount which is as under :- Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rupees) 1 Under the head of Loss of Estate 15,000/- 2 Under the head of consortium 40,000/- 3 Under the head of funeral expenses 15,000/- Total 70,000/- Thus, the claimants are entitled Rs.23,30,104/- (Rs.22,60,104/-+ Rs.70000/-) 10. Liability : So far as liability is concerned, the tribunal has held that opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay award of compensation. Considering the fact that the decease is on bicycle and accident occurred by dashing jeep to bicycle by driver of the jeep. It is a case of third party. It is the case of statutory liability under Section 147 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. We held that learned Tribunal has rightly made responsible to the Insurance Company Considering this aspect, liability is not agitated by the Insurance Company. We uphold the findings of the trial Court. 11. It is the case of statutory liability under Section 147 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. We held that learned Tribunal has rightly made responsible to the Insurance Company Considering this aspect, liability is not agitated by the Insurance Company. We uphold the findings of the trial Court. 11. Conclusion : - Considering the above calculation of compensation, the claimants are entitled Rs.. 23,30,104/- as compensation. The claimants are also entitled the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on amount of compensation from the date of application till realization. Rest of the findings of the trial Court is unaltered. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019 In view of the order passed in the main matter i.e. First Appeal No.2650 of 2019, this application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.