Judgment The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, whereby the respondents-claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,78,000/- and Rs. 8,36,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the whole amount in two claim petitions arising out of single accident on the ground that the Tribunal has not awarded the amount as per the evidence brought on record. It is also submitted that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tractor Trolley but the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Ford Figo car in which the deceased were travelling. In any case, it is submitted that the driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident had contributed equally in the accident. In other words, the compensation in case is to be awarded to the claimants the liability has to be in equal proportion against the drivers/owners of both the vehicles. The respondents-claimants have appeared through counsel. 2. The claimants in both the claim petitions have also filed separate appeals for enhancement of compensation. 3. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that there is nothing on the record to show that the claimants have suffered any pecuniary loss due to the death of Sarvesh Mahajan, Subash Chander and Rajni Devi in the accident. The business which was being run before the death of Sarvesh Mahajan and Subash Chander is still intact and there is no evidence on record to show that they were getting any benefit out of the business which could prompt the Tribunal to award compensation in favour of the claimants. In any case, the awarded amount is excessive one. There is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle-car and therefore the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to compensate the claimants for whole of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. It is emphatically submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle-car was also negligent in driving the vehicle as he had not kept the enough distance between his vehicle and the vehicle being driven in front of him. 4. It is emphatically submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle-car was also negligent in driving the vehicle as he had not kept the enough distance between his vehicle and the vehicle being driven in front of him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents has argued that the driver of the Tractor insured with the appellant-Insurance Company was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which caused accident resulting into death of the three occupants of the car. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not on a higher side and infact the compensation should have been much more than the one awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company has argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the Tractor Trolley liable for the accident which took place on 07.12.2012 though the driver of the vehicle Ford Figo Car was himself responsible for the accident as he did not keep the distance between the two vehicles as required in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. Had the driver of the car taken enough precaution the accident would not have taken place which resulted into death of three occupants of the car. 6. Mr. R.S.Jamwal, learned Advocate for the respondents-claimants has submitted that the driver of the car cannot be held liable for the accident as the driver of the Tractor had applied sudden breaks which resulted into accident. 7. The Tribunal after going through the evidence that is brought on record held the driver of the Tractor bearing No. JK08C-6821 liable for the accident having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted into collision with the car bearing No. JK02AX-6922 in which the victims were travelling. Rule 23 of the Road Regulations speaks of the obligation of the driver of the motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle to keep a sufficient distance from other vehicle to avoid collision in case the vehicle in front slows down or stops suddenly. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether the vehicle moving behind another vehicle was observing sufficient distance so as to avoid collision with the vehicle in front. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether the vehicle moving behind another vehicle was observing sufficient distance so as to avoid collision with the vehicle in front. It is not that the driver of the motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle has to be blamed in all the circumstances in case the driver of the vehicle moving in, front suddenly stops or slows down. It has come on record that the accident has taken place when the driver of the Tractor Trolley suddenly tried to turn left near Barwal Morh, Kathua without giving any signal. The breaks were applied by the deceased-driver of the car yet the same resulted into collision with the Tractor Trolley. The Court does not find any infirmity with the finding given by the Tribunal on the aspect of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor Trolley which was moving in front of the car at the time of accident. 8. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the Insurance Company of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 384 of 2000 to First Appeal No. 388 of 2000 (photo copy of the judgment is placed on record) deals with Rule 23 (supra) and on facts held the driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident as liable for accident and further held the contributory negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles in the ratio of 50%-50%. The judgment does not come to the rescue of the appellant-Insurance Company so far as the present case is concerned. 9. The discussion made above shall apply to both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company as the company had raised the issue decided in favour of the claimants pertaining to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor Trolley which resulted into accident in question. 10. The court now takes up the issue of compensation challenged by the Insurance Company and the claimants in both the claim petitions separately. MA No.119/2017 & Mac App No.35/2021: 11. These appeals arise out of the award passed in File No. 567/2013. In the appeal in hand, the wife and two minor children of the deceased are the claimants. 10. The court now takes up the issue of compensation challenged by the Insurance Company and the claimants in both the claim petitions separately. MA No.119/2017 & Mac App No.35/2021: 11. These appeals arise out of the award passed in File No. 567/2013. In the appeal in hand, the wife and two minor children of the deceased are the claimants. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,78,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants from date of filing of the petition till final payment is made to them. Whereas the Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that the compensation awarded is on higher side, the claimants on the other hand have sought enhancement of compensation through separate appeal. Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal while deciding the issue of the earning of the deceased, Sarvesh Mahajan, husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 has applied guess work and held the earning of the deceased Sarvesh Mahajan as Rs.12000/- per month and also held the deceased to be self employed though there is nothing on the record to show the employment of Sarvesh Mahajan. The argument is that there is no documentary evidence on record that the deceased owned any business or was employed so as to assess the monthly earning of the deceased as Rs.12000/-. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has argued that the deceased was employed and contributing in the business of brick kilns and was also having agriculture income which though not has been wrongly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It has come on record that the deceased did not owe the brick kilns and was not proprietor of the same. The brick kilns belong to Harnam Dass one of the claimants in the claim petitions. However, it cannot be said that the deceased was not contributing in the business of brick kilns as per the evidence on record and having some land also though the extent to which the profit was being reaped by the agriculture income cannot be said to have been proved even remotely in the claim petition. However, it cannot be said that the deceased was not contributing in the business of brick kilns as per the evidence on record and having some land also though the extent to which the profit was being reaped by the agriculture income cannot be said to have been proved even remotely in the claim petition. The court is in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has guessed the monthly earning of Rs.12000/- on a higher side when there is no cogent evidence as how much the deceased Sarvesh Mahajan used to get salary/profit from the family business. The court is of the view that where there is no definite evidence about the earning of the victim the guess work can be infused by the courts in order to assess the earning of the deceased. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was in the family business the monthly earning of the deceased Sarvesh Mahajan can be safely assessed as Rs.10000/-. The court is not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that they have successfully proved the earning of the deceased as Rs.1,50,000/- on account of agriculture income also as nothing was brought on record before the Tribunal to prove this assertion. The claimants cannot expect windfall for themselves only on the strength of filing of the claim petition unless the claimants satisfactorily prove the assertion made regarding earnings through cogent evidence. 13. The court, however, notices that the compensation on account of future loss of prospects is required to be considered in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . As the deceased cannot said to have any fixed income the future earning keeping in view the age of the deceased being 30 years at the time of the accident is to be taken at 40% which comes to Rs.14000/- per month (Rs.10,000 + 40% of Rs.10,000/-). The Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17 as the deceased was in the age group of 26 to 30. The personal expenditure of the earning by the deceased is taken as 1/3rd and the court again finds no reason to interfere on this aspect of the matter as the claimants include even two minor children of the deceased. 14. The Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17 as the deceased was in the age group of 26 to 30. The personal expenditure of the earning by the deceased is taken as 1/3rd and the court again finds no reason to interfere on this aspect of the matter as the claimants include even two minor children of the deceased. 14. Thus under the heading loss of future earning of the deceased the compensation comes to Rs.9300/- (Rs.14000 – 1/3rd of Rs.14000) x 12 x 17 = Rs.18,97,200/-. The claimants are also entitled to loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance case reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . The compensation is also awarded on account of funeral expenses to tune of Rs.25,000/- and loss of estate to the tune of Rs.15000/-. 15. Thus, the total compensation to which the claimants are held entitled to comes to Rs.20,57,200/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal and other directions contained in the award of the Tribunal are upheld. The award stands modified in terms of the above directions of the court. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants stand disposed of accordingly. MA No.120/2017 & Mac App No.25/2021: 16. The claimant No.1 is the father of the deceased Subash Chander and father-in-law of deceased Raj Rani and claimant No.2 is the son of both deceased Subash Chander and Raj Rani. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,36,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants from the date of filing of the petition till final payment is made to them. Whereas the Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that the compensation awarded is on higher side, the claimants on the other hand have sought enhancement of compensation through separate appeal. 17. As far as the appeals arising out of the claim petition No. 568/2013 are concerned the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month keeping in view the evidence that has come on record. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is on the lines of what has been pleaded by him in the appeal arising out of claim petition No. 567/2013. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is on the lines of what has been pleaded by him in the appeal arising out of claim petition No. 567/2013. In the present claim petition, the court does not intend to interfere in the findings of the Tribunal qua the income assessed of the deceased. The age of the deceased Subash Chander was 63 years and of Raj Rani 53 years at the time of accident and are not in dispute. The Tribunal has rightly adopted the multiplier of 7 in case of Subash Chadner and deducted 1/3rd expenses of earnings on his person. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of earning of deceased Subash Chander comes to Rs. 5,60,000/-. The loss of funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.25000/-, loss of estate to the tune of Rs.15000/- and loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.40000/- each to the claimants are also required to be awarded. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.6,80,000/-. 18. The Tribunal has also assessed the income in case of deceased Raj Rani as Rs.36000/- yearly though she was not an earning member of the family but her contribution in the family cannot be denied. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards her personal expenses and applied multiplier of 9 keeping in view her age as 57 years. No interference on account of aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25000/- as funeral expenses and the same is upheld. The claimants are also held entitled to loss of estate to the tune of Rs.15000/-. The claimant No.2 Amit Mahajan is only held entitled to loss of consortium on account of death of his parents which is assessed as Rs.80000/-. Thus, the total compensation on account of death Raj Rani comes to Rs.3,36,000/- . 19. Thus the total compensation in claim petition No. 568/2013 on account of death of two persons comes to Rs.6,80,000+ Rs. 3,36,000/- = Rs.10,16,000/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal and other directions contained in the award of the Tribunal are upheld. The award stands modified in terms of the above directions of the court. 20. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants stand disposed of accordingly. 21. Copy of the judgment shall be placed on all the four appeal files.