JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Both the First Appeals being First Appeal No. 4506 of 2009 and First Appeal No. 4507 of 2009 arising from the Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 1571 and 1572 of 1998 are filed by the original claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. The First Appeal No. 4506 of 2009 is filed by the legal representatives and legal heirs of the deceased Bachubhai Kacharabhai Vaghela. The second First Appeal being First Appeal No. 4507 of 2009 is filed by the injured minor Gitaben Bachubhai. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 27.9.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, (herein after referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos.1571 and 1572 of 1998, the claimants of both the claim petitions have preferred present First Appeals. 4. The short facts giving rise to present First Appeals are as under: 4.1 On 10.8.1998 at 6.00 p.m. the deceased Bachubhai Kacharabhai Vaghela, carrying his minor daughter Gita, was on his way to home via Vegetable Market, Amraiwadi. When they both reached opposite the Lawar Na Chhapra, one Truck carrying dust bearing registration No. GJ-1-TT-9543, of the Corporation, came from vegetable market in full speed, rashly and negligent manner and in violation of traffic rules, knocked down the deceased Bachubhai Kacharabhai Vaghela on the road. 4.2 As a result of which, both of them fell down on the road. The deceased Bachubhai Kacharabhai Vaghela, received serious injuries on his waist and private organs and the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot and minor Gita also sustained various serious bodily injuries. 4.3 The two claim petitions being Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1571 and 1572 of 1998 came to be filed by the claimants, before the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 1571 of 1998 and Rs. 1,65,200/- towards compensation in favour of claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 1572 of 1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have filed aforesaid two First Appeals for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Heard Mr. Karan Dhomse, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Satyen B. Raval, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. 1,65,200/- towards compensation in favour of claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 1572 of 1998. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants have filed aforesaid two First Appeals for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Heard Mr. Karan Dhomse, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Satyen B. Raval, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for Mrs. Kalpana Raval learned Counsel for the respondent-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). I have also perused the material available on record of the First Appeals and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the income of the deceased in its true and proper spirit. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Corporation having raised a specific plea that the deceased was negligent has not been proved, whereas the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation, is sufficiently proved and therefore, in light of the evidence, no contributory negligence at all is proved. He further submitted that looking to the age of the deceased the learned Tribunal has not properly applied the multiplier. It is also further contended that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and adequate compensation and therefore, learned Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the above submissions, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal may be modified and present First Appeals may be allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation in both the First Appeals. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. He has submitted that after taking into account all the relevant aspects and after evaluating all the evidence in proper manner, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award. He has further submitted that after applying its mind in proper manner, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award. He has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, both the First Appeals may be dismissed. 8. He has further submitted that after applying its mind in proper manner, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award. He has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, both the First Appeals may be dismissed. 8. The issue involved in the present appeals is that the amount which is awarded by the learned Tribunal in both the First Appeals is in consonance with the recent judgment of 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 or not? 9. It is also considered by this Court that whether the learned Tribunal is justified in considering the contributory negligency on the part of the deceased being pedestrian and walking on the road hit by the offending vehicle. 10. In present case, the deceased was walking on road being pedestrian along with his minor daughter Gitaben. It is the case of the respondent Corporation that they are walking on middle of the road and therefore, they ought to have taken proper care and vigilance at the time of walking on the road and therefore, there was no fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the negligency on the part of the deceased. 11. The appellants-original claimants have filed this first appeals mainly the ground that the learned Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions and the learned Tribunal has not properly applied the multiplier in present case. 12. So far as the First Appeal No. 4507 of 2009 is concerned the Gitaben sustained serious bodily injuries and impairment of her left ear and she has lost hearing capacity of the left ear and had sustained permanent partial disablement. 13. Considering the age of the minor of only 3 years, now she has to suffer this disablement or impairment for her whole life. 13. Considering the age of the minor of only 3 years, now she has to suffer this disablement or impairment for her whole life. Considering the facts of the present case, original record and proceedings of the M.A.C.P. I am of the opinion that learned Tribunal has committed an error by not awarding the just and adequate compensation. Therefore, the impugned and award deserves to be modified to the extent, so far as the First Appeal No. 4506 of 2009 is concerned, the contributory negligency considered by the learned Tribunal is much higher, as the original claimant deceased was pedestrian while walking on road with a daughter. Therefore, it is the duty of the driver of the offending vehicle that he ought to have taken appropriate caution and with proper care he has to drive the vehicle. Further, the persons who were walking on the road, was clearly visible on the road from the vehicle. However, he has hit the person-deceased from behind and because of that the deceased died due to serious injury caused to the body of the deceased. 14. Considering the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) it is appropriate to grant the just and adequate compensation to the present appellants. In that view of the matter the present appellants are entitled to the additional compensation. In addition to that the appellants are also entitled filial consortium and the mother is also entitled for parental 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 . 15. Further, considering the judgment of the Hon’le Apex Court in case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, 2014 SCC 396 and more particularly the observations made in paragraph No. 12, the amount is required be enhanced, as she has sustained 17% permanent partial disablement body as a whole, as she lost the impairment of her left ear for her life. Therefore, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in above referred decision, the case falls under the second category and she is entitled to get the additional compensation. 16. Considering the settled legal position enunciated in the above referred decision and after hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, present appeals are required to be allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified to that extent. 17. Hence, the claimants of First Appeal No. 4506 of 2009 are entitled for the following compensation: + Rs. 2,000 Income Rs. 800 Prospective 40% - Rs. 2,800 Rs. 933 Personal Deduction 1/3rd Rs. 1,867 x 14 Multiplier Rs. 26,138 x 12 Months Rs. 3,13,656 + Rs. 80,000 Consortium filial + Rs. 30,000 Conventional Rs. 4,23,656 - 42,365.6 Negligency 10% Rs. 3,81,290.4 - Rs. 1,65,200 Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,16,090.4 Enhanced compensation Rounding off Rs. 2,16,090/- with 6% simple interest 18. So far as the claimant of First Appeal No. 4507 of 2009 is concerned, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation. Computation of Compensation As per Award under Challenge in Rupees Alternative Submissions in Rupees (i) Actual income on date of accident Rs. 25,000/- lump-sum Prospective income (ii) Injuries Injuries on hand, leg and head and also Loss of Hearing capacity to the extent of 15% 15% Loss in hearing capacity of the claimant (iii) Disability assessed by doctor Irreparable 15% loss in hearing capacity in Left Ear (iv) As per Master Mallika Arjun Rs. 3,00,000/- for disability of 10% upto 30% And Rs. 1,00,000/- for disability upto 10% Compensation for loss of future income/earning capacity Rs. 25,000 Rs. 2,75,000/- The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs. 2,50,000/- 19. Therefore, in all total the appellants of First Appeal No. 4506 of 2009 are entitled to get the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 2,16,090/- and appellant of First Appeal No. 4507 of 2009 is entitled to get the additional compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- both with 6% interest from the date of application till the realization of the award. 20. Therefore, both the first appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 27.9.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 1571 and 1572 of 1998, is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. 21. 20. Therefore, both the first appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 27.9.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 1571 and 1572 of 1998, is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. 21. The Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of both the First Appeals with 6% interest within period 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order. 22. After enhanced amount of compensation is deposited by the Corporation, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the said amount in as per aforesaid calculation in favour of the claimants of First Appeal No. 4506 and 4507 of 2009, after verifying the bank details of the claimants through R.T.G.S. only. If any deficit Court fees is required to be paid on the additional amount of compensation, the same may be deducted from the enhanced compensation amount. 23. Both the First Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 24. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 25. In view of the order passed in the main First Appeals, the connected civil applications do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly.