JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.5, Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.173 of 1995, the appellant insurance company has preferred present appeal. 2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as under:- 2.1 The respondent No.1 is the mother of the deceased and respondent Nos.2 to 3 are brothers of the deceased. The deceased Ganesh Meshan Makwana, aged 21 years, has lost his life in a vehicular accident which had taken place on 25.11.1994 at about 1.30 hours in the compound of Gulab Mill of Anjar-Kachchh. 2.2 The deceased on the day of accident was serving as a cleaner-cum-part time driver on the Truck No. GTY- 7461. The Truck was parked in the compound. At the time of accident, regular driver of the truck was starting the truck but the truck could not start. The cells of the truck were not working. Truck No. GJ-12-T-6911 was parked there. Therefore, the driver of truck No.GTY-7461 was trying to start the truck with the support of truck No.GJ- 12-T-6911. Thereafter, started the truck No.GJ-12-T-6911 and took it in reverse abruptly in rash, reckless and negligent manner without any signal. At that time the driver lost control over the truck and dashed and collided with the deceased. The deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 2.3 Thus, the claimants have filed claim petition being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.173 of 1995 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.5, Kachchh at Bhuj. Learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence placed on record, awarded the amount compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- in favour of the original claimants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award the insurance company has preferred present appeal. 2.4 Present appeal is filed by the insurance company mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while awarding the amount of compensation to the claimants. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that considering the fact that both the brothers, one is elder and one is younger than deceased are major and they are not dependent on the deceased however, the learned Tribunal has passed the award in favour of the brothers and therefore, learned Tribunal has committed an error. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that considering the fact that both the brothers, one is elder and one is younger than deceased are major and they are not dependent on the deceased however, the learned Tribunal has passed the award in favour of the brothers and therefore, learned Tribunal has committed an error. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error by deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/2, as the deceased was unmarried and considering the settled legal position, instead of 1/3rd, 1/2 is required to be deducted. 4. The controversy involved in the present appeal is that whether the learned Tribunal was right in passing the impugned judgment and award by awarding the compensation in favour of the major brothers, who are not dependent on the deceased and also the dependency benefit considered by the learned Tribunal is right? 5. On this aspect, I have heard Mr. Sunil Parikh learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company and Mr. Dakshesh learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. M.S. Shah, learned counsel. 6. In view of the aforesaid and considering the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it is appropriate to grant the just and adequate compensation to the claimant. 7. In addition to that the mother is also entitled to get consortium as per the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, AIR 2020 SC 3076 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Somwati and others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 . 8. Hence, impugned award is modified to the extent that so far as the dependency benefit is concerned, the mother is the only claimant entitled for dependency benefit in case of the present appeal. 9. So far as quantum is concerned, considering the age of the deceased who was working as a cleaner in the Truck, as there is no evidence with regard to the age of the deceased. 9. So far as quantum is concerned, considering the age of the deceased who was working as a cleaner in the Truck, as there is no evidence with regard to the age of the deceased. So considering the P.M note of the decease, age of deceased was recorded 25 years, which is taken on record. 10. Considering the said evidence, this Court is safely come to a conclusion that the age of the decease is 25 years and considering the income and the age of the deceased, the mother is entitled to recover the amount as under:- Rs. 2,500 Income p.m. + Rs. 1,250 Future Rise (50%) Rs. 3,750 - Rs. 1875 (50% Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 1,875 x 12 yearly income Rs. 22,500 x 18 Multiplier Rs. 4,05,000 + Rs. 40,000 Conventional amount Rs. 4,45,000 + Rs. 30,000 Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate Rs. 4,75,000/- Total 11. Hence, the claimant No.1 – Puriben Meshanbhai Makwana is entitled to Rs.4,75,000/- with 6% interest from the date of application till the realization. 12. Present appellant and respondent No.6 are entitled to get refund of Rs.60,000 with proportionate cost and interest. The same shall be refunded to the present appellant - insurance company and respondent No.6 as per proportion held by the learned tribunal. 13. The said amount is to be refunded on the receipt of the certified copy of the present order after verifying bank details of the both the insurance companies through RTGS. 14. The amount of Rs.4,75,000/- is to be disbursed with 6% simple interest in favour of the mother Puriben Meshanbhai Makwana through RTGS after verifying bank details of the mother Puriben Meshanbhai Makwana. 15. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.5, Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.173 of 1995 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is partly allowed. 16. The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 17. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.