JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 17.10.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Modasa in MACP No. 1070 of 2015, the original claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Heard Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate for Daifraz Havewalla for the appellant, Mr. HG Mazmudar, learned advocate for respondent no. 3 Insurance Company and Mr. Harsharajsinh H. Jhala, learned advocate for respondent no. 2. As the present appeal is directed only on the aspect of quantum and liability is not denied by the Insurance Company, presence of respondent no. 1 driver of JCB is not required for deciding the present appeal. 3. Considering the short issue involved in this appeal, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeal was taken up for its final disposal. 4. Ms. Ajmera, learned advocate for the appellant has provided xerox copies of the relevant evidence on record. 5. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal: 5.1. That the accident occurred on 26.06.2015 at about 12.15 p.m. near village Bayal, Dhankhrol on Bayal to Itadi road. The facts reveal that Shri Pravinbhai Devkaranbhai Patel was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ-9S-2589 slowly and on the correct side of the road. The record reveals that a JCB being driven by respondent no. 1 bearing registration no. GJ-01-FQ-8939 being driven on the wrong side in rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1, dashed with the motorcycle driven by Pravinbhai on the front side. It is a matter of record that Pravinbhai sustained fatal injuries and succumbed during treatment. FIR came to be lodged with Modasa Rural Police Station being I-CR No. 65/15. The appellants filed the present claim petition under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The appellants-original claimants examined the appellant no. 1 at exhibit 20 and also relied upon documentary evidence such as copy of the FIR at exhibit 21, panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 22, PM note at exhibit 24, charge-sheet at exhibit 25, copy of the driving license of respondent no. 60,00,000/-. The appellants-original claimants examined the appellant no. 1 at exhibit 20 and also relied upon documentary evidence such as copy of the FIR at exhibit 21, panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 22, PM note at exhibit 24, charge-sheet at exhibit 25, copy of the driving license of respondent no. 1 at exhibit 26, salary certificate of the deceased at exhibit 29, School Leaving Certificate of the deceased at exhibit 30, driving license of the deceased at exhibit 31 and insurance policy at Exhibit 32 in particular. 5.2. It was the case of the appellants that the deceased was working as an Assistant Teacher in V.K. Patel High School and had salary of Rs. 61,755/-. The appellants also produced pay bill of the deceased at exhibit 29. It was the case of the appellants that the deceased was 54 years old on the date of the accident. It was further the case of the appellant that the appellant no. 1 has lost her spouse and is therefore entitled to spousal consortium and similarly, the deceased has aged parents and therefore, they are also entitled to parental consortium. 5.3. The record further indicates that the Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence nor the driver of the JCB, respondent no. 1 was examined. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, considered the income of the deceased based upon exhibit 29, pay bill, at Rs. 50,000/- per month and following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , considering the increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 15% and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 11, awarded a sum of Rs. 50,60,000/- as compensation under the head of Future Loss of Income. The Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses. The Tribunal also awarded a further amount of RS. 40,000 for loss of spousal consortium and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of parental consortium and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 51,70,000/-. The Tribunal was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- as funeral expenses. The Tribunal also awarded a further amount of RS. 40,000 for loss of spousal consortium and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of parental consortium and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 51,70,000/-. Further, considering the FIR at exhibit 21 and panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 22, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased as driver of the motorcycle was also negligent and attributed 20% negligence of the deceased and thus, the Tribunal awarded net compensation of Rs. 41,36,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-original claimants have preferred this appeal. 6. Ms. Ajmera, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended as under: (1) That the Tribunal has misread and misinterpreted the pay bill at exhibit 29. Ms. Ajmera submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted an amount of Rs. 5,956/- from the salary and according to Ms. Ajmera, the same should be treated as part of the income of the deceased. (2) Ms. Ajmera relied upon FIR at exhibit 21 and panchnama at exhibit 22 and submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the contents of the panchnama and has ignored the fact that the JCB was being driven on wrong side. Still however, the Tribunal has attributed 20% negligence of the deceased who was driving the small vehicle like motorcycle. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore contended that the appeal be allowed as prayed for and the impugned award be enhanced and modified accordingly. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the Insurance Company has opposed this appeal and has contended as under: (1) Mr. Mazmudar contended that the whole reading of exhibit 29 clearly indicates that an amount of Rs. 4,600/- was towards arrears of pay and therefore, that cannot form part of monthly salary. Mr. Mazmudar contended that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased based upon the pay bill at exhibit 29 and has deducted such amount, which does not form part of the monthly income of the deceased. According to Mr. Mazmudar, the Tribunal has committed no error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/-. (2) Mr. According to Mr. Mazmudar, the Tribunal has committed no error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/-. (2) Mr. Mazmudar contended that the evidence on record and the panchnama at exhibit 22 clearly indicate that the accident had occurred on highway and on the date of the accident, the road was under construction and even though the deceased was driving a small vehicle like motorbike, the deceased did not drive the vehicle carefully and because of the negligence on the part of the deceased, the accident has occurred. Mr. Mazmudar contended that therefore the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased Pravinbhai was also negligent to the extent of 20%. Mr. Mazmudar submitted that the Tribunal has correct appreciated the manner in which the accident has occurred as per the panchnama at exhibit 22. Mr. Mazmudar therefore submitted that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 8. Mr. HarshrajsinhJhala, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 has adopted the arguments of Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for respondent no. 3. 9. No other submissions, contentions and/or grounds are raised by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence of income of the deceased, i.e. the pay bill at exhibit 29 or not. Upon perusal of the pay bill of June 2015 at exhibit 29, it appears that the deceased Pravinbhai was working as Assistant Teacher in V.K. Patel High School, Amodara and was in the grade pay of Rs. 9300-34800-4600. The pay bill indicates that an amount of Rs. 4,600/- was being paid as arrears. The Tribunal has therefore correctly appreciated and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/- per month wherein the Tribunal has also considered the deduction towards income tax and professional tax. Even if it is re-assessed based upon exhibit 29, no alteration is required. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any further income. Even if it is recalculated by deducting Rs. 4,600/- which is paid to the deceased in the month of June 2015 towards arrears, after deducting 10% of the income towards income tax and Rs. 200/- towards professional tax, the rounded income would come to Rs. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any further income. Even if it is recalculated by deducting Rs. 4,600/- which is paid to the deceased in the month of June 2015 towards arrears, after deducting 10% of the income towards income tax and Rs. 200/- towards professional tax, the rounded income would come to Rs. 50,000/- as rightly assessed by the Tribunal and the same does not require any modification. 11. Considering the age of the deceased, which was 54 years on the date of the accident, the Tribunal has correctly assessed prospective income to the tune of 15% and has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and has correctly applied multiplier of 11, which is in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). The Tribunal has also considered and awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards spousal consortium and Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Chuhuru Ram and Others, 2018 ACJ 2782 . 12. The other question which requires consideration by this Court is the manner in which the accident has occurred and whether the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the deceased as driver of the motorcycle was also negligent to the tune of 20% or not. The panchanama at exhibit 22 clearly indicates that the deceased was driving motorbike on the correct side and that the JCB was being driven on the wrong side. The insurance company has not examined the driver of the JCB and the panchnama therefore clearly indicates that the JCB was being driven on the wrong side of the Highway. Further appreciating the panchnama, it is also a matter of fact that the manner in which the bike is damaged, the deceased as driver of the motorcycle was also negligent and he could have avoided the accident by controlling his motorbike. Upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the deceased, as driver of the motorbike, was negligent only to the extent of 10%. 13. The Tribunal has awarded gross compensation of Rs. 51,70,000/- and having come to the conclusion that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 10%, an amount of Rs. Upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the deceased, as driver of the motorbike, was negligent only to the extent of 10%. 13. The Tribunal has awarded gross compensation of Rs. 51,70,000/- and having come to the conclusion that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 10%, an amount of Rs. 5,17,000/- deserves to be deducted from the gross compensation and thus, the appellants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 46,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants would therefore be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 5,17,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 14. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent no. 3 insurance company shall deposit the additional amount as awarded by this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.