JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Morvi (hereinafter be referred to as the “Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 177 of 1994, the legal heir of deceased Vimlaben has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994. 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the case: 2.1 That the deceased Vimlaben was travelling in the jeep bearing registration No. GJR-3677 from Wankaner along with other persons and at about 7.30 p.m. when the jeep reached near Ambika Petrol Pump near the signboard of Village Rafaleshwar on Wankaner Morvi National Highway, at that time, tanker bearing registration No. GTX-8970 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed, due to which, the driver of the tanker lost control over the vehicle dashed with the jeep and as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to the injury. Hence, the legal heir of deceased Vimlaben filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 2.2 After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs. 2,19,000/- as compensation in favour of the original claimant. 3. Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4-Insurance Company. Though rest of the respondents are served, but none has appeared before the Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is against the evidence on record and inadequate and unjust as far as quantum of compensation is concerned. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error while determining the amount of compensation and the income of the deceased. He has also submitted that the Tribunal, while passing impugned judgment and award, though the deceased was travelling as passenger in the jeep car, has considered the composite negligence and, therefore, apportionment made by the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law. He has also submitted that the Tribunal, while passing impugned judgment and award, though the deceased was travelling as passenger in the jeep car, has considered the composite negligence and, therefore, apportionment made by the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law. He has submitted that the claimants are the third party to the incident and as per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2015) 9 SCC 273 , the claimants are entitled to recover the compensation from either of the Insurance Company. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded just and adequate compensation as per 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 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . He has further submitted that the claimant no. 1 is also entitled for consortium as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case 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 . He has submitted that the impugned judgment and award requires to be modified to the extent and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. As against that learned counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is no cogent and proper proof or evidence led by the appellant about the income of the deceased and even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. Having considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and proceedings, it appears that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 40 years of age. 6. Having considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and proceedings, it appears that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 40 years of age. That the Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and award, has committed an error by applying multiplier of 17 and it should be applied 18 considering the age of the deceased. It also appears that as per the decisions Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur (supra) and Smt. Somwati (supra), the claimant is entitled to get consortium. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of compensation considering the income of the original claimant (deceased) at Rs. 1500/- plus 40% rise and appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award requires to be substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation and, therefore, the compensation is enhanced under the following heads: Future loss of income [Rs. 1500 p.m. x 40% rise = Rs. 2100 x 1/3 = Rs. 700 = Rs. 1400 (Rs. 2100 - Rs. 700) x 12 = Rs. 16800/- x 18 multiplier] Rs. 3,02,400.00 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00 Consortium Rs. 40,000.00 Total amount Rs. 3,72,400.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,19,000.00 Additional amount Rs. 1,53,400.00 Accordingly a sum of Rs. 1,53,400/- as additional compensation requires to be awarded towards future loss of income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in addition to Rs.2,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced/additional amount of compensation of Rs. 1,53,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. However, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced/additional amount of compensation of Rs. 1,53,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Morvi in M.A.C.P. No. 177 of 1994 is hereby modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recoverable from all the opponents jointly and severally and in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.1,53,400/- as additional amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded which shall be from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. It is clarified that the claimant is entitled to recover the said amount from either of the Insurance Company as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei (supra) and since either Insurance Company is not present, the Insurance Company-respondent no. 4 is entitled to recover the proportionate amount from the opponents-driver and owner of other insured vehicles qua liability as there is composite negligence. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit additional amount of compensation with 6% interest as early as possible within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After deposit of the additional amount of compensation, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant through RTGS, after proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned counsel for the claimant to the Nazir Department of the Court concerned. The appellant is directed to pay deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced amount within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.