JUDGMENT : R.M.CHHAYA, J. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.06.2002 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), in Claim Case No.160/1996, the appellants – original claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short); 2. Heard Mr.P.S.Gogia, learned counsel for the appellants – claimants and Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 – United India Insurance Company. Though served, no one appears for respondent No.2. As the liability is not denied by the Insurance Company, presence of respondent No.1 – driver of the vehicle involved in the accident is not necessary. Learned counsel for the parties have also provided the copies of evidence adduced before the Tribunal for perusal of this Court. 3. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal: 3.1 That on 02.05.1995, the deceased Shital Naginbhai Malavia was going towards Union Bearings India Ltd. from her house on her Luna moped bearing registration No.GJ11A8105 on the left side of the road and when she reached near Narsang Tekri, one truck bearing registration No.GJ7T6978 came in full speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed with Luna moped of the deceased from behind. Deceased Shital sustained grievous injuries on her head and she succumbed to the same in the hospital. 3.2 It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was 19 years old on the date of accident and was a Diploma in Mechanical Engineer and serving in Union Bearings India Ltd., as Technical Assistant and had salary of Rs.3,500/- p. m. The appellants claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,70,000/-, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,600/- along with costs and interest @ 9 % p.a. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the appellants have filed present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended as under: (i) Referring to the FIR at Exh:25, panchnama at Exh:26 and the deposition of the eyewitness namely Kishorkumar Chimanlal at Exh:64, it was contended that the accident has taken place between the Truck and Luna Moped. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended as under: (i) Referring to the FIR at Exh:25, panchnama at Exh:26 and the deposition of the eyewitness namely Kishorkumar Chimanlal at Exh:64, it was contended that the accident has taken place between the Truck and Luna Moped. That the panchnama as well as oral testimony of said eyewitness clearly establishes the fact that, the deceased was driving her Luna on left side of the road and the Truck dashed from behind and the driver also ran away. It was contended that, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 10 %; (ii) That the Tribunal has not considered the vital aspect that the accident took place between heavy vehicle i.e. Truck and tiny vehicle i.e. Luna moped; (iii) That the accident occurred only because of sole negligence of the driver of the truck; (iv) Relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ] as well as Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ], it was contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying only 6 multiplier. Relying upon such judgments, it was submitted that the multiplier has to be applied considering the age of the deceased and not considering the age of the parents and according to Mr.Gogia, appropriate multiplier would be 18 as the age of the deceased Shital was 19 years on the date of accident; (v) Referring to the certificate at Exh:52 issued by the Union Bearing (India) Ltd, where the deceased was working as Technical Consultant, it was contended that, the deceased was having permanent job and hence, the appellants would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 50 %; (vi) It was also contended that, the Tribunal has awarded lesser amount of compensation, under the conventional heads, which should be enhanced as per the judgment of the Pranay Sethi (supra). On the above mentioned contentions, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, impugned judgment and award be modified by allowing the present appeal, as prayed for. 5. Per contra, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned judgment and award. On the above mentioned contentions, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, impugned judgment and award be modified by allowing the present appeal, as prayed for. 5. Per contra, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned judgment and award. Referring to the panchnama at Exh:26, it was contended that though the Luna being tiny vehicle was being driven on the road instead of keeping aside, the bigger vehicle like Truck, the deceased did not drive as per the signals because of which, the truck dashed with Luna and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased being driver of Luna was also negligent to the extent of 10 %. It was also contended that, if the deceased would have been little careful, accident could have been avoided. According to Mr. Thakkar, the Tribunal has correctly decided the issue of negligence and no other view deserves to be taken in the facts of the case and as per the evidence on record. 6. Mr. Thakkar, also contended that the except bear testimony of Manager of the employer i.e Union Bearings (India) Ltd. and the certificate issued by the said company at Exh:52, the appellants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased. He further contended that though the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) would be applicable, in absence of any convincing, the Tribunal has wrongly believed that the income of the deceased, who was Diploma in Mechanical, was Rs.3,500/- p. m in a city like Porbandar in the year 1995. According to him, income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- p. m. deserves to be reduced. It was also contended that, instead of awarding just compensation, the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the appellants. Hence, the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. No other or further submissions and the grounds have been made/raised by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, upon reappreciation of the documentary evidence, which was led before the Tribunal, on perusal of the impugned judgment and award and on reappreciation of the evidence, it is clear that the accident took place between heavy vehicle i.e Truck and tiny vehicle i.e. Luna Moped. 7. Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, upon reappreciation of the documentary evidence, which was led before the Tribunal, on perusal of the impugned judgment and award and on reappreciation of the evidence, it is clear that the accident took place between heavy vehicle i.e Truck and tiny vehicle i.e. Luna Moped. The panchnama as well as oral testimony of eyewitness Kishorkumar Chimanlal at Exh:64 examined by the appellants, clearly establishes the fact that Luna was being driven by the deceased on the left side of the road and Truck dashed with the said Luna from its left side. Bare reading of the panchnama, therefore, indicates that the Truck made an attempt to overtake the Luna and dashed with it, considering the fact that it dashed on the back side of Luna. Eyewitness Kishorbhai Chimanlal examined at Exh:64 even in the crossexamination has stated that, the Truck dashed with Luna from its left side from behind. On perusal of the observations and the reasonings for attributing 10 % contributory negligence to the deceased, we find that the Tribunal has not given any cogent reason. Considering the panchnama at Exh:26 and the deposition of Kishorbhai Chimanlal at Exh:64 as well as conduct of the driver of the Truck, who ran away after the accident, the same clearly establishes the fact that the driver of the Truck was solely negligent for the accident. We may hasten to add that the driver of the truck has not been examined by the respondents including the respondent Company. Though the impugned judgment and award indicates that the driver of the truck Lakhabhai Devshi Ratiya was represented by his advocate before the Tribunal, upon reappreciating the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent and the impugned award therefore deserves to be modified to the said extent on the point of negligence. 8. As far as the contention of Mr. Thakkar with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have relied upon the certificate issued by the Union Bearings (India) Ltd, situated at Porbandar, which is dated 11.05.1995. The accident occurred in May, 1995 and the said certificate indicates that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.3,500/-. 8. As far as the contention of Mr. Thakkar with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, the appellants have relied upon the certificate issued by the Union Bearings (India) Ltd, situated at Porbandar, which is dated 11.05.1995. The accident occurred in May, 1995 and the said certificate indicates that monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.3,500/-. The evidence further shows that the deceased was a qualified Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and the certificate issued by the Union Bearings (India) Ltd. clearly indicates that the deceased was working since more than one year as Technical Consultant in the said Company. In order to prove the said certificate, the claimants have examined Umakant Prabhashankar Joshi, who was examined at Exh:66. The said witness was working as Assistant Manager in the Union Bearings (India) Ltd, Porbandar and has deposed before the Tribunal that because of fire, earlier record have been destroyed and that the certificate at Exh:52 has been issued by earlier Manager Shri Sunilbhai Kulkarni. The said witness has also stated that the deceased was working in the said Company. Even in his cross examination, nothing contrary is found. 9. Upon reappreciation of such evidence on record, we find that the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the certificate at Exh:52 and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- p. m. We also find that the Tribunal has given multiplier based upon the age of the parents, who are the appellants in this petition. Hence, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier should be applied based upon the age of the deceased and not upon the age of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased. Record clearly indicates that the deceased was 19 years old on the date of accident and therefore, appropriate multiplier would be 18. As per the certificate at Exh:52 and the deposition of Umakant Prabhashankar Joshi, at Exh:66, the deceased was permanent employee of Union Bearings (India) Limited and therefore, the appellants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 50 %. 10. As per the certificate at Exh:52 and the deposition of Umakant Prabhashankar Joshi, at Exh:66, the deceased was permanent employee of Union Bearings (India) Limited and therefore, the appellants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 50 %. 10. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future dependency as under: Income per annum Rs.3,500/- - 50% future prospects income + Rs.1,750/- Rs.5,250/- 1/2 towards personal expenses - Rs.2,625/- Rs.2,625/- x 12 Rs.31,500/- Multiplier (As the age of the deceased was 19 years on the date of accident) x 18 + Rs.5,67,000/- 11. Over and above the same, the appellants would be entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of estate as well as funeral expenses. 12. As Rs.3,00,600/- is already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to get further compensation of Rs.2,96,400/- and the same would be just compensation. However, considering the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 1995, the appellants would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. on such additional compensation enhanced by this Court. 13. For the foregoing reasons, present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, respondent No.3 – Insurance Company shall deposit additional amount of compensation of Rs.2,96,400/- before the Tribunal along with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.