JUDGMENT : R.M.CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 10.6.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.628 of 2003, the appellants Union of India and its authorities have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal: That, the deceased – Jagdishbhai was driving his Kinetic scooter bearing registration no. GUX – 7106 on 25.10.2003 at about 10:45 a.m. and was proceeding towards Bazar. Record indicates that while the deceased reached the Town Hall Circle at about 11:00 a.m. on the turning point of the said Circle, a truck belonging to the appellants bearing registration no. OOD 127274 W, being driven in a rash and negligent manner and without any indication of horn came from behind and overtook the scooter and other scooters and hit the deceased from behind. Record indicates that the said accident occurred on the road in front of Akshar Travels Agency, which is situated on 50 ft. wide road. As the record indicates, the driver of the truck took the deceased Jagdishbhai to Guru Govindsinh Hospital at Jamnagar. However, he was declared dead. An FIR was lodged with Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station and the respondents – original claimants being wife and two minor children of the deceased – Jagdishbhai, preferred the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.23,05,500/. It was the case of the respondents – original claimants that the deceased was aged 45 years old on the date of the accident and was serving as Class-I Officer as District Statistical Officer in the District Panchayat, Jamnagar. It was the case of the respondents – original claimants that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.16,001/in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-275-14,050 and it was also the case of the respondents – original claimants that the deceased – Jagdishbhai was due for promotion to the higher post in super scale. The original claimants examined Janakben wife of the deceased – Jagdishbhai Chauhan at Exh.22 and one Nandlal Prabhudas Dhanesha at Exh.35. The original claimants examined Janakben wife of the deceased – Jagdishbhai Chauhan at Exh.22 and one Nandlal Prabhudas Dhanesha at Exh.35. The respondents – original claimants also relied upon documentary evidence, such as, complaint at Exh.24, inquest Panchnama at Exh.25, Panchnama of scene of offence at Exh.26, vehicle log book at Exh.27, postmortem note at Exh.28, death certificate of the deceased at Exh.29, licence of the deceased at Exh.30, school leaving certificate of the deceased at Exh.31, order of promotion at Exh.32 and the pension papers at Exh.37. 3. The appellants – original opponents no.2 and 3 examined appellant no.1 – Vijaykumar P. Pillai who was driver of the army truck involved in the accident and Madan Mampai Regan (Dandaman) at Exhs.41 and 42 respectively. The respondents – original claimants also produced photographs of the accident of the vehicle after the accident at Exh.40. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and the submissions made before it, determined the monthly income of the deceased as per the pay certificate and applying formula of other benefits including family pension scheme also considered the fact that 13 more years of service was left. Determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,700/and after deducting onethird towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13, the Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.14,25,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of estate. Over and above the same, the Tribunal also granted additional amount of Rs.25,000/- including funeral charges and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.14,50,000/out of which the Tribunal has deducted 20% amount towards extent of negligence of the deceased and ultimately, awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.11,60,000/- (Rs.14,50,000/- 20%). 4. The Tribunal, after considering the Panchnama at Exh.26, depositions of Mr. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the Panchnama at Exh.26, depositions of Mr. Vijaykumar Pillai, driver of the army truck at Exh.41 and Madan Mampai Regan (Dandaman) at Exh.42 as well as the photographs relied upon by the appellants – original opponents at Exh.40, threadbare examined the manner in which the accident has taken place and after examining each and every possibility, meticulously examining the manner in which the accident has taken place, came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck and the deceased were both liable for the accident in the ratio of 80:20 and thus, awarded net compensation of Rs.11,60,000/with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and being aggrieved by the same, the driver, Union of India and the Indian army have preferred this appeal. 5. Heard Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants. 6. Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants has taken this Court through the Panchnama at Exh.26, deposition of the driver – Mr. Vijaykumar Pillai – appellant no.1 at Exh.41, Dandaman at Exh.42 and also heavily relied upon the photographs at Exh.40. Ms. Jhaveri contended that considering the extent of damage caused to Kinetic scooter, the truck was not come in contact with the scooter at all. It was further contended that even the Tribunal has considered the said aspect, but has committed an error in appreciating the evidence in form of Panchnama at Exh.26 and has wrongly believed the version of the respondents – original claimants that the army truck came from behind and tried to overtake the scooter. Referring to the photographs at Exh.40, it was contended that the photographs clearly show that construction was going on in the area, where the accident has taken place and it being a turning point, in fact, the deceased lost his balance for which the appellants and the army truck are wrongly blamed and are involved in the accident. It was further contended that even though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased as driver of Kinetic scooter should have avoided the accident instead of composite negligence, the Tribunal has committed an error in quantifying the negligence in the ratio of 80:20. Ms. It was further contended that even though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased as driver of Kinetic scooter should have avoided the accident instead of composite negligence, the Tribunal has committed an error in quantifying the negligence in the ratio of 80:20. Ms. Jhaveri alternatively submitted that driver of the truck was equally liable and negligent for the accident. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore contended that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly. 7. Per contra, Mr. Vishal C. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants have supported the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Mehta contended that as such the respondents have not preferred any appeal. However, bear reading of the Panchnama at Exh.26 clearly establishes the fact that the scooter was damaged and only because it was damaged less, it cannot be said that there was no collusion from behind between the truck of the army and scooter which was being driven by the deceased. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal has considered the depositions of the driver of the army truck at Exh.41 and also Dandaman at Exh.42 and considering the Panchnama has clearly observed that the road was not uneven in any form. Mr. Mehta contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has decided the issue of negligence, which does not require to be altered or modified in any manner. Mr. Mehta relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , on the contrary, submitted that the deceased was 45 years old and was a Class-I Government Officer and therefore, the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 30%. Mr. Mehta referring to the observations made by the Tribunal in Paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment and award, contended that on the contrary, the Tribunal has awarded lesser amount under the head of loss of estate. Mr. Mehta also contended that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to compensation under different conventional heads including funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.70,000/-, whereas, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/-. Mr. Mehta also contended that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to compensation under different conventional heads including funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.70,000/-, whereas, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/-. According to Mr. Mehta, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the truck of the army tried to overtake and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner even though it was a turning point and busy circle near Town Hall of Jamnagar City and has, after correct appreciation of the Panchnama at Exh.26 as well as considering the deposition of the driver of the army truck, rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the army truck was negligent to the tune of 80%, whereas 20% negligence is held to be that of the deceased. On the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted that the Tribunal has in a way awarded compensation and no interference is called for and the appeal, being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 8. No other or further contentions and/or submissions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. As far as the quantum is concerned, the same is not raised in this appeal and the respondents – original claimants have not preferred any Cross Appeal or Cross-Objections and therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to reexamine the issue of quantum at all. However, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 30% of the income as existed on the date of the accident and would also be entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/as additional compensation under different conventional heads including funeral expenses. 10. We have also examined Panchnama at Exh.26 as well as deposition of Mr. Vijaykumar Pillai, driver of the army truck at Exh.41. In Paragraph 2 of the deposition, he has stated that no accident with the truck has happened and that there is no scratch upon the truck. He has also stated that at the place of accident, pebbles were there for repairing of the road. In his crossexamination, however, he has admitted the fact that he is not aware as to how the accident has taken place. He has also stated that at the place of accident, pebbles were there for repairing of the road. In his crossexamination, however, he has admitted the fact that he is not aware as to how the accident has taken place. He has also admitted the fact that he stopped the vehicle only as and when Dandaman asked him to stop the vehicle. He has also stated in his crossexamination that he stopped the truck at the distance of about 30 ft. from the place of accident. In his crossexamination, he further improved that the repairing material was lying. He admits that the repairing material which was lying was that of the school and that the same was lying on the side of the road. He has also admitted in Paragraph 7 of the crossexamination that he was not aware about the accident till Dandaman informed him. He has reiterated that the truck did not touch the scooter. Again, in his further crossexamination, he denies that he stopped his vehicle on Dandaman asking him to do so. He has, however, denied other suggestions made by the respondents. Another witness examined and relied upon by the appellant – Madan Mampai Regan (Dandaman) at Exh.42 has, however, stated that one scooter tried to overtake from the left side of the truck. The said witness has also stated that there was no collusion between the truck and the scooter and has denied the suggestions made by the respondents. We have also perused the photographs at Exh.40. The same shows that the rear right side of the scooter is found damaged. Considering the manner in which the accident has taken place and based upon Panchnama at Exh.26, the same also shows that rear side of the scooter was damaged and fresh scratch marks were found on the seat of the scooter. It is also noted in the Panchnama that the headlights and the side glass of the scooter are damaged and the pieces of glass are scattered on the road. It is also submitted that the accident has taken place on a 50 ft. wide road at the distance of about 10 ft. from Akshar Travels office. It is also noted in the Panchnama that the headlights and the side glass of the scooter are damaged and the pieces of glass are scattered on the road. It is also submitted that the accident has taken place on a 50 ft. wide road at the distance of about 10 ft. from Akshar Travels office. In totality of facts, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Tribunal in Paragraph 15 of the judgment, which read as under: "[15] Now, considering the aforesaid oral evidence of both the sides, along with the pleadings of the parties, it is found that there is constant stand of the applicant no.1 that Army Truck has hit scooter of her husband from behind. Against this, opponent no.1 has not filed any written statement. The opponent no.2 & 3 have filed their composite reply wherein they have taken stand that opponent's vehicle was driven by Vijaykmar P. Pillai with full care and caution and has following all the traffic rules slow down the vehicle at the turning point of the Town Hall and blown horn several times. It is also averred that at the time of accident, daughter of the deceased was standing in front foot rest. Further, it is stated that deceased might be talking with his daughter who was standing in the front foot rest and lost the balance due to uneven road condition and the scooter hit the left rear wheel of the Army Truck. Against this pleading, the opponents have changed their version in the evidence by stating that at the time of accident, the scooter driver – deceased was trying to overtake the Army Truck from left side and due to uneven road condition, he had slipped and died. Thus, there is variance between pleading and proof in respect of the defence of the opponents. It is pertinent to note that even from the pleading it is alleged that the driver of the Army Vehicle has slowed down his vehicle at the turning point of Town Hall. This shows that before that turning point, vehicle was in speed. It is also found from the deposition of the driver of the Army Vehicle that at the relevant place of accident, the scooter was lying in between the road. This shows that before that turning point, vehicle was in speed. It is also found from the deposition of the driver of the Army Vehicle that at the relevant place of accident, the scooter was lying in between the road. Against this, it is found from the panchnama of scene of offence which is at Exh.26, that scooter was lying 10ft away from the Akshar Travels and the measurement of the place of scooter to the Gutter which is there near Radhe Krishna Mandir is 37 Ft" and scooter is lying between that portion of the road. It is also found from the panchnama of the scooter that there are black wheel marks on the scooter. At this juncture, if we peruse the joint photographs of the scooter at Exh.40, it is found that on the right side of the rear portion of the scooter, there are marks on it. On perusal of the photographs it is also found that the scooter has been damaged on the right side and the back carrier is bend towards outside of the scooter and not towards the pillion sit. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to note that it is the contention of the applicant that Army Truck has hit her husband's scooter from behind, but that fact is not believable from the panchnama of the scene of the offence as well as the photographs. Had there been really such hitting from behind in a speedy manner, as alleged by the applicant, then the deceased could have been thrown either on the left or the right hand side of the Army Truck or would have fallen in front of the Truck. If the deceased has fallen in front of the Army Truck, then Truck could have crushed him and the scooter would have got much damage. But, nothing sort of this has happened in this case. In either of these situations, it seems difficult to apprehend that front wheels of the Army Truck or front portion of it would have come in contact with the scooter of the deceased. At this juncture, it is required to be observed that a man may lie but circumstances would not. In either of these situations, it seems difficult to apprehend that front wheels of the Army Truck or front portion of it would have come in contact with the scooter of the deceased. At this juncture, it is required to be observed that a man may lie but circumstances would not. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, even if we accept the version of the applicant that the Army Truck has overtaken her even in that case, in view of the above observation, it cannot be believed that Army Truck has hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. Considering the circumstances as brought on the record, regarding the condition of the scooter it might be possible that the Army Truck might have tried to overtake the scooter of the deceased and more than half of the Army Truck might have overtaken the scooter and rear wheel might not have passed and at that time for whatever reason, the left rear wheel of the Army Truck impact with the right portion of the scooter and due to that scooter might have fallen and deceased got injury due to falling on road and might have died. At the same time, the version of the opponent that the deceased was trying to overtaking the Army Truck from left side and due to uneven road, his scooter got slipped is also not believable. Because from the panchnama of scene of offence, there is no mention of uneven road. Not only that, but it is also found from the photographs itself that the scooter has been parked on the Kuccha Road and photograph has been taken. It is clear that the photographs has not been taken on the moment of so called incident, but it is taken afterwards. At the same time, it is required to be observed that the opponent has not produced any photographs of the Army vehicle for the consideration of the Tribunal. It seems that the opponents are blowing hot and cold. But, at the same time in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the version of the applicant as to hitting of the scooter from behind is also not believable. It seems that the opponents are blowing hot and cold. But, at the same time in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the version of the applicant as to hitting of the scooter from behind is also not believable. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer the panchnama of scene of offence, which was prepared in presence of applicant no.1 and it is relied on by the applicant in support of their claim that it is specifically mentioned therein that the Army Truck which was standing 40 Ft. away from the scooter had collided left rear side wheel of Truck to the deceased Jagdish Vhunibhai and due to that deceased has fallen and got injury and died. This fact suggests that initially, there was version of left rear side wheel of the Army Truck was impacted to the scooter. Against this, applicant has changed her version and has put forward that scooter was hit behind by the Truck. Thus, the applicant side is also blowing hot and cold, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that while driving the Army Truck at the relevant point of time, the driver of the vehicle was some what negligent while overtaking the scooter of the deceased. But at the same time, it seems that the deceased was also negligent up to some extent as circumstances suggests that at the relevant time the army truck has tried to overtake him and therefore, deceased could have also avoided the happening of the event by taking due care and caution as left rear wheel of the Army Truck has struck him. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the driver of the Army Truck was negligent up to 80% while driving his Truck and the deceased has also contributed his negligence up to 20%." 11. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record as discussed hereinabove, more particularly, Panchnama at Exh.26, photographs of the scooter at Exh.40, deposition of Mr. Vijaykumar Pillai at Exh.41 and deposition of Madan Mampai Regan (Dandaman) at Exh.42, we are in total agreement with the observations made by the Tribunal. Only because there was less or no damage to the army truck, the manner in which the accident has taken place, which is quite evident from Panchnama, cannot be discarded. Vijaykumar Pillai at Exh.41 and deposition of Madan Mampai Regan (Dandaman) at Exh.42, we are in total agreement with the observations made by the Tribunal. Only because there was less or no damage to the army truck, the manner in which the accident has taken place, which is quite evident from Panchnama, cannot be discarded. On the contrary, we find that the Tribunal has succinctly considered all aspects and the observations made in Paragraph 15 which are mentioned hereinabove on the contrary shows the correct details and minute appreciation of the evidence on record. 12. As far as the quantum is concerned, even though we find that the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to further amount by way of additional prospective income and additional conventional heads, as no appeal is preferred by the respondents – original claimants, the award does not require any modification. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record as a whole, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which does not require any interference. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.