JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to “the Tribunal”), in M.A.C.P. No.406 of 2006 and M.A.C.P. No.427 of 2006, First Appeal No.1488 of 2011 is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Rajesh Madhavji Sakariya seeking enhancement of the compensation and First Appeal No.1489 of 2011 is filed by the appellant – original claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions. 2. The same set of facts was adduced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has heard the claim petitions together and so also, the present appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that on 28.05.2006, Madhavji Lavjibhai Sakariya was travelling on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-10-J-7171 from Dharampur to Jamnagar with his son Rajesh, who was sitting as pillion rider and when they reached near Bhatiya Patiya at about 8.00 a.m., at that time, a bus bearing registration no.GJ-1-X-9971 came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, dash with the motorcycle, due to which, Madhavji sustained injury of amputation and Rajesh sustained fatal injuries. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased Rajesh and claimant – Madhavji have filed claim petitions respectively before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs.2,37,900/- and Rs.5,91,305/- respectively under the different heads. 4. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was ordered to be awarded to the deponents. Not being satisfied with the compensation amount, this appeal has been filed. 5. Heard Mr.Nitin Amin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr.H. G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Insurance Company. 6. Mr.Amin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has submitted that looking to the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was 23 years, however, the Tribunal has committed an error by applying the multiplier of 14 considering the age of the deceased as 25 years. 6. Mr.Amin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal. He has submitted that looking to the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was 23 years, however, the Tribunal has committed an error by applying the multiplier of 14 considering the age of the deceased as 25 years. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% towards personal expenses as the deceased was unmarried. He has submitted that the Tribunal has also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the motorcycle was negligent to the extent of 35% and driver of the bus was negligent to the extent of 65% without there being any cogent evidence and without there being any oral evidence recorded in support of the contention as the Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the bus and, therefore, the contributory negligent considered by the Tribunal is erroneous. He has submitted that the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that there is ample satisfactory evidence about the income of the victims and award to that effect is also on lower side. On all these grounds, he has submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified to the extent. 7. As against that Mr.Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent – Insurance Company in both the appeals has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that so far as the income of the deceased – Rajesh and the injured claimant – Madhavji is concerned, there is no cogent and proper proof or evidence led by the appellants about the income of the deceased as well as injured and even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, no interference is called for. 8. No other or further submissions, grounds or contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following questions arise in these appeals for determinations. (a) Whether the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased or not? (b) Whether the Tribunal has rightly considered the contributory negligence while determining the amount of compensation or not? 10. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following questions arise in these appeals for determinations. (a) Whether the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased or not? (b) Whether the Tribunal has rightly considered the contributory negligence while determining the amount of compensation or not? 10. 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 and perused the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the Tribunal has committed an error by awarding just and adequate compensation. It also appears that the Tribunal has committed an error by applying multiplier and, therefore also, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to the extent. So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, the driver of the motorcycle is liable 10% negligent instead of 35%. Considering the purshis filed by the claimant at Exhibit 78 and oral as well as documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified to the extent. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , I am of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation considering the income of the deceased as well as injured, the appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award requires to be substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation. I answered to the aforesaid questions accordingly. 11. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the claimants of First Appeal No.1488 of 2011 are entitled to get loss of consortium. 12. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the claimants of First Appeal No.1488 of 2011 are entitled to get loss of consortium. 12. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants would be entitled to compensation as under:- First Appeal No.1488 of 2011 :- Rs.4,000/- p.m. + Rs.1,600/- (40% rise) = Rs.5,600/- x 1/2 personal expenses = Rs.2,800/- x 12 = Rs.33,600/- x 17 multiplier Rs.5,71,200.00 Loss of estate Rs.15,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000.00 Loss of consortium Rs.80,000.00 Total amount Rs.6,81,200.00 Less: 10% negligence Rs.68,120.00 Rs.6,13,080.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,37,900.00 Additional amount Rs.3,75,180.00 First Appeal No.1489 of 2011 :- Rs.4,000/- p.m. x 12 = Rs.48,000/- x 13 multiplier Rs.6,24,000.00 Actual Loss Rs.48,000.00 Pain, shock and suffering Rs.60,000.00 Medical expenses Rs.1,25,200.00 Attendance charges Rs.20,000.00 Special diet Rs.9,000.00 Transportation charges Rs.13,500.00 Future Treatment Rs.10,000.00 Total amount Rs.9,09,700.00 Less: 10% negligence Rs.90,970.00 Amount Rs.8,18,730.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.5,91,305.00 Additional amount Rs.2,27,425.00 Accordingly a sum of Rs.3,75,180/- and Rs.2,27,425/- respectively 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.2,37,900/- and Rs.5,91,305/- respectively awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced/additional amount of compensation of Rs.3,75,180/- and Rs.2,27,425/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till its realization. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby modified and in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.3,75,180/- and Rs.2,27,425/- 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. 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 claimants through RTGS, after proper verification. 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 claimants through RTGS, after proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned advocate for the claimants to the Nazir Department of the Court concerned. The amount lying in the FDR, if any, shall be disbursed in favour of the concerned claimants, after proper verification. The appellants are 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. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.