JUDGMENT : Mauna M. Bhatt, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is filed by the Insurance Company as appellant challenging the judgement and award dated 30/08/2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi.), 3rd Additional District Judge, Bharuch in MACP No.691 of 2013, wherein the Tribunal held involvement of Maruti Esteem car in the accident and consequently held the insurance company liable for payment of compensation of Rs.25,86,820/-, with interest @ rate of 9% per annum and proportionate costs. Whereas, cross-Objection No.186 of 2022 is filed by the original claimants, under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking enhancement of compensation. As both these, first appeal and cross-objection are arising out of the common judgement and award dated 30/08/2018, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, they are heard and decided together by this common judgement. 2. Short facts, arising from the record, are as under: 2.1. This is second round of litigation. The accident took place on 23/10/2013, on old National Highway No.8, Nr.Chhapara Patia within the jurisdiction of Ankleshwar Police Station, District: Bharuch. A claim petition under section 166 of the of the act, being MACP No 691 of 2013, was filed by the original claimants seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. It was case of the original claimants that Ashokbhai Ramlal Yadav (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti Esteem Car No.GJ-16 AH 6529. It was case of the original claimants that deceased was a pedestrian and died on account of negligent driving of driver of Maruti Esteem car. 2.2 On the other hand, it was case of the Insurance company that the Maruti Esteem car was not involved in the accident and therefore insurance company of Maruti Esteem car is not liable for payment of compensation as claimed. In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal, after adjudication directed Opponent Nos.1 to 3 i.e driver, owner and insurance company of Maruti Esteem car to pay compensation of Rs.25,86,820/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization with proportionate cost. The said compensation was awarded under following heads : Dependency Loss Rs.25,31,820/- Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.25,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.25,000/- Total compensation Rs.25,86,820/- 3. The said compensation was awarded under following heads : Dependency Loss Rs.25,31,820/- Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.25,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.25,000/- Total compensation Rs.25,86,820/- 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and award, First Appeal No.456 of 2016 was filed by the appellant-Insurance company of Maruti Esteem car challenging its liability. It was the case of Insurance company in First Appeal No.456 of 2016, that though judgement of the competent criminal court in Criminal Case No.4792 of 2013, acquitting driver of Maruti Esteem Car from the charges, was produced at Exhibit-52, the same was not considered by the tribunal and therefore the award dated 30/12/2015 is erroneous. This Court in First Appeal No.456 of 2016 vide oral judgement dated 27/07/2016 quashed and set aside the judgement and award dated 30/12/2015, passed by learned Tribunal in MACP No.691 of 2013 and remanded the matter to decide afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits and after considering the judgement of the competent criminal court passed in Criminal Case No.4792 of 2013. Pursuant to remand Tribunal, decided the claim petition afresh vide order dated 30/08/2018, holding that the Maruti Esteem Car was involved in the accident. In relation to quantum, the tribunal observed that there is no change in the oral and documentary evidence as well as circumstances than the first round of litigation. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.25,86,820/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization, with proportionate costs. The tribunal further held original opponents nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the award dated 30/08/2018, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 4. Heard Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance company and Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants. The fact of Maruti Car insured with insurance company at the time of accident is not in dispute, and therefore presence of other respondents is not required. Record and proceedings have been secured and the same is placed for perusal of this Court. 5. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the decision of competent criminal court dated 07/03/2015 in Criminal Case No.4792 of 2013, at Exh.52, in its true spirit and content. Record and proceedings have been secured and the same is placed for perusal of this Court. 5. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the decision of competent criminal court dated 07/03/2015 in Criminal Case No.4792 of 2013, at Exh.52, in its true spirit and content. Referring to the said decision, he submitted that in that case, the criminal court has observed that despite FIR and charge-sheet, no case is made out against the driver of Maruti Esteem car and therefore, driver of Maruti Esteem car was acquitted by the competent court of law. He submitted that even the involvement of Maruti Esteem car could not be established in the said proceedings and therefore, learned Tribunal is in error in fastening the liability on insurance company. He submitted that as the involvement of Maruti Esteem car is not established, question of negligence of driver does not arise and learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding that driver of Maruti Esteem car was negligent in occurrence of the accident. Without prejudice to the above submissions, alternatively, he submitted that in relation to quantum, the learned Tribunal is in error in awarding 50% towards future prospective income after placing reliance on National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . As the deceased was 38 years old and self-employed, 40% rise ought to have been granted towards future prospective income instead of 50%. He thus, submitted to allow his appeal. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly considered Exh.52 and held that Maruti Esteem car bearing registration No.GJ-16 AH 6529 was being driven by Rajeshbhai Padmakar Kulkarni at the relevant time and therefore, involvement of vehicle is established beyond reasonable doubt. Relying upon Exh-52, he submitted that in the judgement dated 07/03/2015 in Criminal Case No.4792 of 2013, it is recorded that one Prakashbhai Laxmanbhai Hirani was examined at Exh.60. In his affidavit, he has stated that he was traveling on 23/10/2013 at 9:00 pm with Rajeshbhai on old National Highway No.8. Rajeshbhai was driving Maruti Esteem Car and he was sleeping on rear seat, at that time on account of sudden break, he woke up but he was not aware how the accident occurred. In his affidavit, he has stated that he was traveling on 23/10/2013 at 9:00 pm with Rajeshbhai on old National Highway No.8. Rajeshbhai was driving Maruti Esteem Car and he was sleeping on rear seat, at that time on account of sudden break, he woke up but he was not aware how the accident occurred. He therefore submitted that the competent criminal court has acquitted the driver of Maruti Esteem car on account of “benefit of doubt” and therefore, contention of the appellant that there was no involvement of Maruti Esteem car could not be accepted. He further submitted that standard of proof required in civil and criminal proceedings are quite distinct and different. In support of his submissions he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and others V/s. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2019 SC 994 . In relation to compensation, he submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding lesser compensation. Despite there being 3 dependents, learned tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon decision delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , as well as in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 . Relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , he submitted that compensation awarded towards loss of Estate and Funeral expenses may be enhanced accordingly. He therefore, submitted to dismiss the first appeal filed by the insurance company and to allow the cross-objection filed by the original claimants. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the record and proceedings and evidence on record. 8. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is noticed that the Tribunal in second round of litigation has threadbare considered Exh-52, which is the judgement in Criminal Case No.4792 of 2013 dated 07/03/2015. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the record and proceedings and evidence on record. 8. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is noticed that the Tribunal in second round of litigation has threadbare considered Exh-52, which is the judgement in Criminal Case No.4792 of 2013 dated 07/03/2015. In the said decision, deposition of Prakashbhai Laxmanbhai Hirani is recorded at Exh.60, who stated that he was traveling in Maruti Esteem Car at the time of accident and was sleeping on the rear seat of the car. It is only because of a sudden break that he woke up, however he was not aware about manner of accident. The Tribunal basis this deposition, has rightly in our opinion, come to a definite conclusion that even after taking into consideration Exh.-52, which is the precise reason why the matter was earlier remanded to the Tribunal, the involvement of Maruti Esteem Car in the accident is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Though attractive on first blush, the arguments of Mr. Mehta, the Ld. Advocate for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted also because one cannot lose sight of the fact that the acquittal of the driver of Maruti Esteem Car was on account of “benefit of doubt” and no other solid evidence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is not in error in holding that the Maruti Esteem car was involved in the accident and consequently, fastening the liability on insurance company of Maruti Esteem Car for payment of compensation. Furthermore, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that the standard of proof in relation to civil and criminal proceedings are quite distinct and different and therefore, we do not find any error in findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that Maruti Esteem Car No.GJ-16 AH 6529 was involved in the accident and that consequently insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 9. However, in relation to future prospective income, we are in agreement with the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in awarding 50% rise for future prospective income instead of 40%. As the deceased was self-employed and 38 years old, in view of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. As the deceased was self-employed and 38 years old, in view of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the claimants are entitled for only 40% rise towards future prospective income. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for dependency loss as under : “Rs.1,68,788/- per annum + Rs.67,515/- (40% prospective rise) = Rs.2,36,303/- per annum - Rs.78,768/- (1/3rd dependency) = Rs.1,57,535/- per annum x 15 multiplier (considering age at 38 years) = Rs.23,63,025/-”. 10. In respect of the cross-objections filed by the original claimants, we are in agreement with the submission advanced by Learned advocate Mr. Hakim that since the deceased was survived by three dependents, applying the ratio of Satinder Kaur (supra), the original claimants would be entitled to get consortium of Rs.40,000/- for each dependent. Further, the original claimants would be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral expenses as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. The original claimants thus would be entitled to the total compensation as under : Loss of dependency Rs.23,63,025/- Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.25,13,025/- 12. In view of the above, following order is passed:- (1) First Appeal filed by the appellant – insurance company is partly allowed and Cross-Objection filed by the original claimants is allowed to the extent of grant of additional Loss of Consortium, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses. (2) The impugned judgment and award dated 30/08/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi.), 3rd Additional District Judge, Bharuch in MACP No.691 of 2013 is hereby substituted and total compensation of Rs.25,13,025/- is awarded to the original claimants. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,86,820/-, the appellant - Insurance company is entitled for refund of Rs.73,795/- [Rs.25,13,025/- - Rs.25,86,820/-] with interest and proportionate costs. (3) If the aforesaid amount has been deposited by the appellant – Insurance company and the same is lying in the Fixed Deposits, learned Tribunal is hereby directed to refund an amount of Rs.73,795/- with interest accrued there on with proportionate costs to the appellant – insurance company within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (4) It is needless to say that the original claimants are entitled for balance amount and the same shall be disbursed to the original claimants through RTGS. The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal shall remained unaltered. (5) Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.