JUDGMENT : MAUNA M. BHATT, J. 1. Insurance Company as appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 21.10.2011 passed by MACT (Assistant), 4th Additional District Judge, Nadiad in MACP No. 900 of 2005, wherein the Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. 21,56,550/- to the original claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs. 2. The brief facts are as under: 2.1. That on 21.3.2005, Devendrabhai Ishwarbhai Patel was going on his motorcycle from Sandesar to Shahpur at 7’O Clock in the evening. At that time, one Rickshaw No. GJ-7W- 2340 came from wrong side and collided with motorcycle, because of which, Devendrabhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as deceased) sustained grievous injuries and expired during the treatment on 25.3.2005. A FIR Exh.46 was lodged and Panchnama Exh.49 was drawn. It was case of the original claimants that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of driver of Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340. 2.2. For the said accident, the legal heirs of deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs. 3. Upon claim petition being filed, notices were issued. Respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements. It was case of the Insurance Company that Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340 was not involved in the accident. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of evidence on record decided the issues as under: (i) The Tribunal held that the Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340 was involved in the accident. (ii) In relation to negligence, the Tribunal held the driver of the rickshaw negligent to the extent of 100% for occurrence of the said accident. (iii) In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 21,56,550/- under different heads as under: Loss of income in future Rs. 20,52,000/- For treatment, P.S.S. etc. Rs. 64,550/- Loss of expectation Rs. 25,000/- Consortium Rs. 10,000/- Death rituals and transportation Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 21,56,550/- 4. Aggrieved by the involvement of vehicle (Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340), and consequentially the negligence held and quantum of compensation awarded present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 21.10.2011. 5. Heard Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company with whom the rickshaw was insured and Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants. Aggrieved by the involvement of vehicle (Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340), and consequentially the negligence held and quantum of compensation awarded present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 21.10.2011. 5. Heard Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company with whom the rickshaw was insured and Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants. Though served, respondent No. 6 (driver of the rickshaw) and respondent No. 7 (owner of the rickshaw) chose not to appear. However, as liability has not been denied, presence of respondents No. 6 and 7 is not required and dispensed with. 6. Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the judgment and award dated 21.10.2011, of the Tribunal, is erroneous as the Tribunal erred in not considering the ground raised by Insurance Company, questioning the involvement of Rickshaw No. GJ-7W- 2340 in the accident. Referring to panchnama dated 26.3.2005 and panchnama dated 27.3.2005, she submitted that both the panchnamas were prepared subsequent to the date of accident which occurred on 21.3.2005. Moreover, in the panchnama dated 27.3.2005, no reference was made of rickshaw, which questions the involvement of the vehicle as stated in the claim petition. Therefore, the Tribunal is in error in not appreciating that the rickshaw insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident. 7. For negligence, she submitted that without admitting the involvement of rickshaw in the accident, from the statements recorded in the panchnama, it is clear that the driver of the motorcycle was also negligent for occurrence of the said accident. The damage occurred to the motorcycle shows that the motorcycle was driven with the high speed and therefore, the driver of motorcycle was also negligent to certain extent for occurrence of the accident. She thus submitted that the Tribunal erred in not holding the driver of motorcycle negligent to the extent of 20%. 8. In relation to compensation, she submitted that the Tribunal is in error in not assessing the correct salary of the deceased and also erred in granting 50% rise towards future prospective income. She thus submitted that quantum of compensation being on the higher side also needs reduction. She thus submitted to allow her appeal on all three grounds. 9. On the other hand, Mr. She thus submitted that quantum of compensation being on the higher side also needs reduction. She thus submitted to allow her appeal on all three grounds. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants submitted that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence on record and no interference is called for. In relation to involvement of vehicle, relying upon charge-sheet at Exh.50, he submitted that the driver of the Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340 has been charge-sheeted, who admitted that he left the scene of incident on 21.3.2005. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340 was involved in the accident. In relation to negligence, he submitted that the Tribunal relied upon FIR at Exh.47, affidavit of Mr. Harshadbhai Chottabhai Patel who lodged FIR, panchnama and postmortem report had arrived at a finding that the driver of Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340 was sole negligent for occurrence of the said accident. He submitted that there being no illegality, no interference is called for. 10. In relation to the quantum of compensation, he submitted that deceased was earning Rs. 11,465/- as salary by serving as Junior Clerk in Shri Pritam High School, Sandesar. The salary slip is on record at Exh.42. As the deceased was 38 years old at the time of accident, 50% was appropriately awarded towards future loss of income. He thus submitted that there being no error in judgment and award dated 21.10.2011, the appeal of the appellant may be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon re-appreciation of evidence, it is noticed that subsequent to the FIR charge-sheet was filed after inquiry against driver of Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340. The said charge-sheet is at Exh.50. It is also on record that the driver of rickshaw ran away from the scene of incident which also shows the guilt to rickshaw driver. The charge-sheet was filed against the driver of rickshaw by the police after inquiry. Therefore, in our opinion the Tribunal is correct in holding Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340 was involved in the accident occurred on 21.3.2005. There is no error in the findings that the rickshaw insured with the appellant was involved in the accident, and therefore, the submission of learned advocate Ms. Bhaya does not merit acceptance on this ground. 12. Therefore, in our opinion the Tribunal is correct in holding Rickshaw No. GJ-7W-2340 was involved in the accident occurred on 21.3.2005. There is no error in the findings that the rickshaw insured with the appellant was involved in the accident, and therefore, the submission of learned advocate Ms. Bhaya does not merit acceptance on this ground. 12. In relation to negligence, the Tribunal relying upon the panchnama dated 26.3.2005, particularly the condition of motorcycle and the affidavit of widow of deceased had held driver of rickshaw as sole negligent for occurrence of the accident. The record shows that the driver of the rickshaw ran away from the place of accident and also not entered into the witness box. In absence of any contrary evidence on record, we concur with the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the rickshaw was sole negligent for the occurrence of the accident. Thus the appeal of the appellant, fails on this ground also. 13. In relation to compensation, a co-colleague of deceased Alpeshkumar Vinubhai Patel had stated on oath at Exh.41 that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 11,358/- and was working in Shri Pritam High School, Sandesar as Junior Clerk since last 10-12 years. The salary slip of deceased is produced at Exh.42 which shows the salary of deceased in the year 2005 and therefore, in our opinion the Tribunal had correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,400/- p.m. Further as per the driving license the date of birth of the deceased was 2.11.1967 and therefore, he was 38 years of age at the time of accident and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the claimants would be entitled to 50% rise towards future prospective income. The compensation awarded under other heads in our opinion is proper and does not call for any interference. 14. In view of above, the appeal of the appellant being meritless fails on all three grounds. The judgment and award dated 21.10.2011 does not call for any interference and therefore the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The original claimants therefore, would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 21,56,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal with interest accrued thereon forthwith upon receipt of copy of this order. The judgment and award dated 21.10.2011 does not call for any interference and therefore the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The original claimants therefore, would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 21,56,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal with interest accrued thereon forthwith upon receipt of copy of this order. The same shall be disbursed through RTGS after due verification. 15. Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.