JUDGMENT : R.M.CHHAYA , J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Vadodara in MACP no.1429/93, the appellantsoriginal claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Heard Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned advocate for the appellants – original claimants, Mr. Iqbal Malik, learned advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. Anal Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.3 – insurance Company. Appellant no.4 – Shardaben, mother of the deceased had died during pendency of this appeal. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants seeks permission to delete appellant no.4 as her estate is represented by other appellants. Accordingly, appellant no.4 stands deleted from the array of this appeal. 3. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:- 3.1 That, the accident took place on 14.5.1993 at about 12:15 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. It is the case of the appellants-original claimants that the deceased Vaghajibhai was driving the scooter bearing registration no. GJ-17 7193 from Keval Paper Mill, situated in Timba Village and was proceeding towards Sevaliya for taking his meals from the place of his service. It is the case of the appellants–original claimants that when he reached near the nala opposite S.I. Quarry at about 5.00 kms., a truck bearing registration no. GTJ 5318 came from opposite direction being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed first with the cyclist who was going ahead of deceased Vaghajibhai and then it dashed with the scooter driven by the deceased Vaghajibhai, because of which, the deceased Vaghajibhai fell down and came under the truck and sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. An FIR was lodged with Pandu Police Station bearing CR no. I-36/93 at Exh.27. The present claim petition was preferred by the appellants – original claimants under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.73,41,000/-. 3.2 It is the case of the appellants-original claimants that the deceased was 42 years old on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.3,71,817/- per year from the technical consultancy as well as the business and was also doing bullion business. The respondent– insurance Company filed its written submissions at Exh.25. 3.2 It is the case of the appellants-original claimants that the deceased was 42 years old on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.3,71,817/- per year from the technical consultancy as well as the business and was also doing bullion business. The respondent– insurance Company filed its written submissions at Exh.25. One of the claimant– Kusumben was examined at Exh.26 and over and above the same, the appellants – original claimants relied upon the documentary evidences, such as, copy of the complaint Exh.27, copy of the Panchnama Exh.28, insurance policy of truck bearing registration no. GTJ 5318 Exh.42, postmortem report of the deceased Vaghajibhai Exh.29, Partnership Deed of Keval Paper Mill Mark 19/5, Partnership Deed of Ganesh Trading Company Mark 19/6, income-tax returns of Keval Paper Mill of the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 Mark 19/7 to 19/9. It is the case of the appellantsoriginal claimants that the deceased was a Science graduate with Chemistry and thereafter, was working with Gujarat paper mill at Bareja and thereafter, he started Keval paper mill at Timba, Godhra. The said mill on the said date of the accident was a partnership firm. It is also the case of the appellants – original claimants that the deceased had agriculture land and was cultivating the same and over and above the same, the deceased had business from Share Market. The appellants – original claimants also examined Chartered Accountant – Shri Arun Soni at Exh.29 and also taken into consideration the income-tax returns for the accounting years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 produced on record and on the said basis, it was contended that the deceased had income of Rs.40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal, after adopting multiplier of 13, awarded Rs.5,20,000/- under the head of future loss of income. Over and above the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards loss to estate and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. 3.3 Considering the FIR at Exh.27 and the Panchnama at Exh.28, the Tribunal assessed the negligence of the deceased at 25% and after deducting the same while partly allowing the claim petition awarded net compensation of Rs.4,16,250/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellantsoriginal claimants contended that the Tribunal has misread the evidence in form of FIR at Exh.27 and the Panchnama at Exh.28. Mr. Dave further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 75% and the deceased as driver of the scooter was negligent to the extent of 25% on the ground that no damage is caused to the truck. According to Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellants, such presumption is contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. Dave therefore contended that upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record, the driver of the truck was solely negligent. 4.1 Relying upon the deposition of the Chartered Accountant – Shri Arun Soni at Exh.29 and relying upon the income-tax returns Mark 19/7 to 19/9, it was contended by Mr. Dave that the Tribunal wrongly presumed the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- per month only. Referring to the Partnership Deed of Keval Paper Mill at Mark 19/5, Mr. Dave contended that the deceased was managing the affairs of the said paper mill and had a major share from the income of the same. Referring to and relying upon the same piece of evidence, Mr. Dave contended that the income-tax returns clearly show that the income of the deceased was from two other sources as averred and claimed in the petition. According to Mr. Dave, income should have been based and determined on such piece of evidence. Mr. Dave further relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Somwati, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , contended that at the time of the accident, the daughter – Dipal and son – Pritesh were minor and therefore, the appellants – original claimants would be entitled to parental consortium over and above the spousal and filial consortium in favour of the mother who was alive when the claim petition was filed. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified. 5. Per contra, Mr. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be modified. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anal Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 – insurance Company has opposed the appeal. Mr. Shah contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly considered the manner in which the accident has occurred. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 – insurance Company further contended that the accident has occurred in broad day light and the deceased who was driving a smaller vehicle should have been careful while driving on a highway. According to Mr. Shah, the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident and negligence is attributed in the ratio of 75:25 is proper, which does not require any modification. 5.1 Mr. Shah further contended that the appellants-original claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased. According to Mr. Shah, the Partnership Deed of Keval Paper Mill as well as the income-tax returns produced on record are not conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and the same cannot be relied upon. Mr. Shah contended that even considering the educational qualifications and the vocation of the deceased considering the date of accident being 14.5.1993, the presumed income of Rs.5,000/- per month by the Tribunal is correct assessment of the income and the same does not require any alteration or modification. Mr. Shah further contended that in facts of this case, the appellant no.4 who has died during pendency of the claim petition is not entitled to any consortium. Mr. Shah contended that the appeal, being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other or further submissions, averments, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. We have perused the original record and proceedings and more particularly the FIR at Exh.27 and the Panchnama at Exh.28 as well as the reasonings given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been overwhelmed by the fact that there is no damage to the stationary truck involved in the accident. 7. We have perused the original record and proceedings and more particularly the FIR at Exh.27 and the Panchnama at Exh.28 as well as the reasonings given by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been overwhelmed by the fact that there is no damage to the stationary truck involved in the accident. Only because there is no damage to the truck and the mudguard and steering of left side of the scooter was damaged, it cannot be culled out that the deceased, as driver of the scooter, was negligent to the extent of 25%. Upon reappreciation of the Panchnama at Exh.28, it clearly transpires that the truck dashed with the scooter. The truck, being heavy vehicle, naturally may not be damaged, but upon reappreciation of the evidence on record in form of the Panchnama as well as the FIR, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal to the effect that the deceased who was driving the scooter involved in the accident was negligent to the tune of 25% only because the scooter was damaged. In opinion of this Court, upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, damage to the scooter is a natural course when it is dashed with a heavy vehicle like the truck. Thus, such a finding arrived at by the Tribunal is erroneous. Upon considering the manner in which the accident has occurred and the truck being a heavy vehicle, the driver of the truck should have been more careful and in such circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent. 8. Upon considering the deposition of the Chartered Accountant – Shri Arun Soni at Exh.29, it transpires that he himself has verified the account books of paper mill of the deceased. We also find that there is an OD certificate issued by the very Chartered Accountant. It is true that the original papers were not produced by the appellants, but in a claim petition, such evidence cannot be ignored in toto. Moreover, the other documents on record including the income-tax returns clearly establish the fact that the deceased had income from paper mill, trading as well as from share business. Over and above the same, the appellants-original claimants have also relied upon the photocopies of the share certificates in the name of the deceased and his family members including that of United Trust of India. Over and above the same, the appellants-original claimants have also relied upon the photocopies of the share certificates in the name of the deceased and his family members including that of United Trust of India. No contrary evidence has been adduced by the insurance Company. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record as regards the income on record, the presumption made by the Tribunal to the effect that the income of the deceased was just Rs.5,000/- is incorrect. In order to prove the income in a claim petition which is a benevolent legislation, rigors of proof is not the same as in other civil or criminal case. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, this Court deems it fit to rely upon the Partnership Deed and the copies of the incometax returns of the respective accounting years and so also, the other documentary evidences in form of the investment by the deceased. Upon reappreciation of such evidence on record, we deem it proper to quantify the income of the deceased by taking average of the same at Rs.17,500/- per month. After deducting 25% towards personal expenses and by applying appropriate multiplier of 14, considering the age of the deceased being 42 years on the date of the accident, over and above the same, the appellant no.1 would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- as spousal consortium and appellants no.2 and 3 who are minor at the time of the accident would be entitled to parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each and the mother would also be entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- as she was alive when the claim petition was decided by the Tribunal. 9. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants-original claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income as under:- Rs.17,500/- Income per month X 12 Yearly = Rs.2,10,000/- Yearly income + Rs.52,500/- 25% prospective income = Rs.2,62,500/- Yearly income - Rs.65,625/- 25% deducted towards personal expenses = Rs.1,96,875/- Yearly income X 14 Multiplier = Rs.27,56,250/- Total + Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 4) + Rs.30,000/- Loss of estate and funeral expenses = Rs.29,46,250/- Total compensation 10. Thus, the appellants-original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.29,46,250/-. However, the appellants original claimants have been entitled to interest at the rate of 6% interest per annum on the enhanced/additional amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Thus, the appellants-original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.29,46,250/-. However, the appellants original claimants have been entitled to interest at the rate of 6% interest per annum on the enhanced/additional amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,16,250/-, the appellants-original claimants would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.25,30,000/- as additional compensation. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The insurance Company shall deposit the additional/enhanced amount along with the interest as provided in this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. 11. The appeal is thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Registry is directed to remit the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.