ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad on 17.03.2021 whereby an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 19.09.2014 was set aside in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 3. As per the claimants, the deceased Dinesh Kumar was standing on the road when a three-wheeler No.UP 83R 9767 struck against the deceased leading to his death on the spot. The deceased is survived by his wife, two minor daughters and a minor son. The legal heirs filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Firozabad. The claimants examined PW-2 Mithlesh Kumar to prove the negligence on behalf of the driver of threewheeler. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of eyewitness and awarded a compensation of Rs.7,37,172/- along with interest @ 7% per annum. 4. In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court held that the witness is not only a relative of the deceased but also a resident of a neighboring village, thus his statement cannot be relied upon. The High Court also found that the brothers of the deceased Raghuvir Singh and Mahvir Singh were also present but they were not examined. The High Court thus found that the claimants have failed to prove the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and consequently allowed the appeal. 5. It is admitted that the driver and the owner of the vehicle have not been examined. The driver was the best witness to rebut the evidence of PW-2-Mithlesh Kumar, who was examined to prove the negligence on behalf of the driver of the offending vehicle. Merely for the reason that Mithlesh Kumar is a relative of the deceased and also resident of neighboring village, it will not make him an interested witness in the summary proceedings for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The reasoning of the High Court is absurd as if Mithlesh Kumar was an interested witness, then how the two brothers of the deceased could be the relevant witnesses. The best evidence was not produced by the Insurance Company i.e., the driver who was admittedly driving three-wheeler at the time of accident. The reasoning of the High Court is absurd as if Mithlesh Kumar was an interested witness, then how the two brothers of the deceased could be the relevant witnesses. The best evidence was not produced by the Insurance Company i.e., the driver who was admittedly driving three-wheeler at the time of accident. In view of the said fact, we find that the reasoning given by the High Court is totally erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. 6. The deceased was working as a cleaner at the bus depot drawing a salary of Rs.5724/- per month. He was 35 years of age on the date of the accident. In terms of the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the appellants are entitled to 40% increase on account of future prospects. The appellants shall also be entitled to Rs.40,000/- for each dependent on account of loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Thus, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation as under: Head Amount (Rs.) A Loss of earnings @ monthly salary @ Rs. 5724/- (deduction @ 1/4 ) and future prospects @ 40% (4293 + 1717 x 12 x 16) 11,53,920 B Loss of Estate 15000 C Loss of Consortium (Rs. 40000 each for wife, two daughters and one son) 1,60,000 D Funeral Expenses 15000 Total 13,43,920 7. The compensation thus is computed as Rs. 13,43,920. 8. The appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.7% p.a., awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 9. With the above, the appeal is disposed of.