JUDGMENT : 1. The First Appeal No.3836 of 2009 is filed by the appellant – Insurance Company against the quantum and negligence and First Appeal No.4304 of 2006 is filed by the appellants – original claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) dated 23.05.2005 passed in M.A.C.P. No.117 of 2002. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 08.11.2001, Anil Hemantlal Jankhariya was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-10-L-3768, at about 2.30 p.m., near 8 kilometers away from Dhorivav road, one rickshaw came from opposite direction driven by original opponent no.1 in rash and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle of said Anil Jankhariya, as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimant had preferred M.A.C.P. No.117 of 2002, which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.05.2005 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- as against her claim of claiming Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Heard Ms.Sharmishta Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Premal Rachh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error in considering the 20% negligency of the deceased and also not considered the panchnama and the deposition of the driver. She has submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error in deducting only 1/3 rd amount for the personal expenses of the deceased and calculating the amount of compensation on a higher side. She has submitted that the Tribunal has multiplier of 15 which is not just and proper looking to the age of the deceased. She has submitted that the Tribunal has also committed serious error in considering the income of the deceased which is much on a higher side and also in calculating the future loss of income to the family. She has submitted that as per the panchnama and the FIR at Exhibit 67 and 68 and statement of driver at Exhibit 100, at the time of accident, the road was clear and wide enough, the motorcycle came in full speed in wrong side and dashed with right side of the rickshaw and due to the accident, wooden box was damaged and rickshaw fell down in the dig of road. She has submitted that at the time of accident, the motorcycle was in full speed and deceased was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and he himself was sole responsible for the accident. He has submitted that as per the statement of the driver at Exhibit 100, the deceased was only responsible for the accident and tortfeasor is not entitled for any compensation from the opponents. She has submitted that as the deceased was unmarried, learned Tribunal had deducted only 1/3 rd for personal expenses, 1/2 amount should have been deducted as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . She has submitted that the deceased was government servant and serving at Village: Lavadiya as Vidhya Sahayak on temporary basis and he was not permitted to leave the service place without prior approval of the competent authority and his salary was fixed at Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of accident and there was no any assurance for permanent service from the authority. She has further submitted that there was no any documentary evidence regarding extra income, like pay slip, vouchers or bank passbook produced by the deceased or by the witness. She has submitted that considering the deposition of witness No.4 Kantilal at Exhibit 73 and witness No.5 Kishorbhai at Exhibit 91, it appears that deceased was a part time teacher and appointment of Vidhya Sahayak is not transferable job and after completion of two years satisfactory work the assessment is made by the District Education Officer. She has also submitted that extra earning by the deceased is not satisfactory and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award the amount of consortium and future loss of income in its true and prospective spirit. He has submitted that the sufficient evidence regarding actual income produced on record in the form of examination of original claimant no.1 at Exhibit 34, deposition of witnesses at Exhibit 35, 72 and 73, written arguments on behalf of the claimants at Exhibit 105 and educational certificates at Exhibit 43 and 52. He has submitted that the sufficient evidence regarding actual income produced on record in the form of examination of original claimant no.1 at Exhibit 34, deposition of witnesses at Exhibit 35, 72 and 73, written arguments on behalf of the claimants at Exhibit 105 and educational certificates at Exhibit 43 and 52. He has submitted that from the said evidence, it establishes that the deceased was highly qualified and educated person having a bright carrier and future ahead had he not died untimely due to the vehicular accident. He has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. He has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in applying 15 multiplier only, however, at the time of vehicle accident deceased was aged about 25 years and was only earning member of the family and, therefore, the multiplier of at least 20 ought to have been applied. He has submitted that taking into consideration of the guidance from the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 18 years should have been applied while determining the amount of just and proper compensation. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error while coming to the conclusion that deceased was negligent in driving motorcycle and, therefore, 20% liability by way of contributory negligence can be fastened upon him. He has submitted that on perusal of the FIR at Exhibit 67, charge-sheet at Exhibit 71 and panchnama at Exhibit 68, it emerges that the driver of the rickshaw was solely responsible for the accident and the driver of the rickshaw has falsely deposed that he applied break to avoid accident, whereas, panchnama clearly shows that there is no signed of break marks. He has submitted that Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of funeral charges, loss of estate and pain, shock and suffering is not just and proper, but the Tribunal has to award Rs.30,000/- under the said heads. He has submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and since, the claim petition came to be filed in the year 2012, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Nasimbanu Wd/o. Sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi and others Vs. He has submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and since, the claim petition came to be filed in the year 2012, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Nasimbanu Wd/o. Sirajuddin Amruddin Kazi and others Vs. Ramjibhai Bachubhai Ahir and others, 2005 (2) GLR 1476 , interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 12% instead of 9% as awarded by the Tribunal from 07.02.2002 till 20.07.2005 and, thereafter reducing it to 6% per annum till the realization. He has submitted that the quantum of compensation is less and the same may be enhanced. He has submitted that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and against the well settled principles of law and, therefore, the same may be enhanced with interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the deposit of the aforesaid amount. 6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and record and proceedings and perused the materials placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was educated and was serving as assistant teacher and also taking tuition classes. This fact is supported by the documentary evidence as well as the deposition of the witnesses. Considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 1211, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Seti, 2017 (3) G.L.H. 536 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , I am of the considered view that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company requires to be partly allowed to the extent that the negligency considered by the Tribunal is to be enhanced to the extent of 30% instead of 20%. So far as the quantum is concerned, the contention of the Insurance Company is hereby answered in negative and it is enhanced accordingly. So the appeal filed by the original claimants is also succeed in part. The compensation is required to be redetermined as under:- Actual Income Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. 5,000/-) Prospective income (40% rise) Rs. 7,000/- Less – Personal expenses (Rs.7000 X 1/2) Rs. 3,500/- Dependency benefit (Rs.3500 X 12) Rs. So the appeal filed by the original claimants is also succeed in part. The compensation is required to be redetermined as under:- Actual Income Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. 5,000/-) Prospective income (40% rise) Rs. 7,000/- Less – Personal expenses (Rs.7000 X 1/2) Rs. 3,500/- Dependency benefit (Rs.3500 X 12) Rs. 42,000/- Loss of dependency (42000 X 18) Rs.7,56,000/- Less Contributory negligence (Rs.7,56,000 X 30%) Rs.2,26,800/- Future Loss of income Rs.5,29,200/- + Loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium (as per decision reported in (2018) 18 SC C 130) Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.6,49,200/- Less : Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,70,000/- Additional Amount Rs.2,79,200/- 7. For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass following order. (i) First Appeal No.3836 of 2009 is partly allowed to the extent that the negligency is to be enhanced from 20% to 30%. First Appeal No.4304 of 2006 is partly allowed. (ii) Judgment and award passed dated 23.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.117 of 2002 is hereby modified and in substitution to what has been awarded by the Tribunal a sum of Rs.2,79,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is awarded which shall be from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. (iii) The apportionment and order for deposit as made by the Tribunal in paragraph No.34 of the operative portion of the order shall hold good for the substituted award. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount with running interest at the rate of 7.5% expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.