JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 14.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 303 of 2007, by which, the claim petition of the claimant is partly allowed by the Tribunal, directing the opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- with 9% interest per annum, to the claimants, jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that, on 02.01.2006, deceased – Ramabhai was going as pedestrian on left side of the road, at the relevant time, one motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-6-BH-855 came in rash and negligent manner, in endangering the human life and dashed with the deceased. As a result, the deceased has received serious injuries and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants i.e. two sons and widow have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. The notices issued by the Tribunal were served to the opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company. Only insurance company has appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.18 before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal has framed the issued and led the oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the submissions made by the respective parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,000/- with 9% p.a. interest to be paid to the claimants by the opponents, jointly and severally. Hence, the insurance company has preferred this appeal before this Court. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi for the appellant – Insurance Company has mainly contended that claimant No.1 – Ranchhodbhai Ramabhai Varia was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri at the time of filing the claim petition, therefore, he could have been considered as dependent. He has submitted that no proof of age is produced on record since as per the claim petition, the proof of age of the deceased was mentioned as 62 years, whereas in the injury certificate, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 75 years. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in deducting the amount towards personal expenses as 1/4th, which should be atleast 1/3rd. The Tribunal has also committed error by applying multiplier of 6, which should be 5 in these facts. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in deducting the amount towards personal expenses as 1/4th, which should be atleast 1/3rd. The Tribunal has also committed error by applying multiplier of 6, which should be 5 in these facts. He has further submitted that there is no strict proof income of the deceased produced by the claimants and it is highly erroneous to presume that at the age of 75 years, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. He has further submitted that there is no nexus between the accidential injuries and cause of death as neither doctor is examined by the claimant nor any post-mortem is carried out. Therefore, in absence of any conclusive evidence, the Tribunal has committed error in granting the claim petition by awarding Rs.2,22,000/-, by considering that the deceased was died due to the accident and in support of his contention about the nexus, he has cited the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport corporation Versus Srinivasa Murthy G.K. reported in (2018) III ACC 789 and another judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Manohar (deceased) Thr. LRs. reported in (2018) IV ACC 270 (DB). In those judgments, the Hon’ble Court have found that there is no nexus between the injuries and cause of death and therefore, he has submitted that the appeal may be allowed by dismissing the claim petition, or in the alternative, the amount of compensation may be reduced. 4. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the respondents - original claimants has submitted that in the claim petition, the age of deceased was mentioned as 62 years and therefore, 6 multiplier is properly awarded by the Tribunal. He has submitted that since the claimant No.1 was earlier serving as Talati-cum-Mantri, but, at the time of claim petition, he was not serving and therefore, he should be considered as dependent. He has submitted that on the aspect of quantum, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of Rs.3,000/- per month of the deceased. He has submitted that since the claimant No.1 was earlier serving as Talati-cum-Mantri, but, at the time of claim petition, he was not serving and therefore, he should be considered as dependent. He has submitted that on the aspect of quantum, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of Rs.3,000/- per month of the deceased. He has further submitted that under the conventional head also, the Tribunal has awarded very conservative amount of Rs.40,000/-, which should be Rs.60,000/- in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and therefore, he has submitted that the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal is otherwise calculated even if multiplier is reduced to 5, which would come to the same amount and therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned judgment. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sunandben Narendrakumar Joshi reported in 2011 (3) GCD 2444 , whereby the Court has found that there is nexus between the accident and cause of death. He has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash Versus Divisional Manager reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 where there is no cross-objection is filed by the parties, even then, the Court has considered the submissions of the party about the relief which is not properly granted by the Tribunal though claimed. Therefore, he has submitted that in the present set of facts also, the Court can consider the amount accordingly by considering the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (ii) Sarla Verma Versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and (iii) Magma General Insurance Company Limited Versus Nanu Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 . He has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 5.1 I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. I have perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties. He has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 5.1 I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. I have perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties. It is true that the age of the deceased is mentioned as 75 years in the injury certificate and in the claim petition, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 62 years, but since the documentary evidence by way of injury certificate should be considered, which should have more weightage against the pleadings of the parties, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration that the age of the deceased is 75 years. However, the Tribunal has committed error in granting multiplier of 6, which should be 5 in the facts of this case. Though the Tribunal has not given any appropriate reasons for considering the income of Rs.3,000/- per month of the decased, the judgment which is relied on by the claimants before the Tribunal in the case of Santosh Devi Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 , 30% prospective income is required to be added, as per the submissions of the claimants. In that case, the prospective income is required to be considered, but I found that looking to the overall scenario, the income which is considered by the Tribunal Rs.3,000/- p.m., is just and proper and if we consider the amount of 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses, it is required to be deducted from Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, it comes to Rs.2,000/- per month and if we consider accordingly, then after applying multiplier 5, the amount under the head of loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,20,000/- and by adding the amount of Rs.70,000/- in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (supra) under the conventional head, which is required to be added, it would come to Rs.1,90,000/-. The amount of Rs.32,000/- should be considered, instead of Rs.20,000/-, under the head of pain, shock and suffering, as the deceased was hospitalized for 22 days and looking to the injuries and treatment and more particularly, old age and the fact that he was also suffering from the blood pressure. The amount of Rs.32,000/- should be considered, instead of Rs.20,000/-, under the head of pain, shock and suffering, as the deceased was hospitalized for 22 days and looking to the injuries and treatment and more particularly, old age and the fact that he was also suffering from the blood pressure. Therefore, on recalculation of the amount of compensation, Rs.1,20,000/- plus Rs.70,000/- plus Rs.32,000/-, total comes to Rs.2,22,000/-. Therefore, the amount ultimately comes to the same, which is awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 5.2 Now, the contention regarding the nexus between the injuries and cause of death is concerned, I found that though there is no evidence of doctor available on record, but looking to the injury certificate, which is produced on record at Exh.28, it clearly shows that there is some fracture and also some swelling on the chest. The death certificate which is also produced at Exh.30 clearly indicates that the deceased has expired on 27.01.2006. The bills which are produced on record also indicate that the deceased was going for long treatment and he was hospitalized for 22 days as indoor patient. His age is also considered as 75 years and thereafter, the claimant No.1 - Ranchhodbhai has also deposed at Exh.32 by supporting the case and though the insurance company has cross-examined the claimant at length on the aspect of cause of death just to dispute the nexus between the cause of death and the injuries of the deceased, no substance is found from the cross-examination of the witness. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Anita Sharma verus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 1 SCC 171 , it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred in finding that the death of the deceased was caused due to the accidental injuries and the insurance company is failed to prove its contention by examining the appropriate witness(es), including any doctor. Merely the treatment papers of particular hospital is not produced on record would not fatal the case of the claimants for getting the amount of compensation. I found that there is no substance in the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Merely the treatment papers of particular hospital is not produced on record would not fatal the case of the claimants for getting the amount of compensation. I found that there is no substance in the contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi for the appellant – insurance company regarding the nexus between the injuries and cause of death in the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly, our High Court has also taken a view that when the Tribunal has found that there is no nexus from the record and in absence of any contrary evidence produced by the insurance company, the nexus should be believed in the facts and circumstances. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the present case also and looking to the age of the deceased, it can be easily inferred that the death is caused due to the injuries received in the accident. There is no infirmity found about the finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, on both the counts, the quantum as well as the nexus between the injury and cause of death, the insurance company fails in the present appeal and therefore, the appeal is required to be dismissed, which would meet the ends of justice. 6. For the reasons noted above, the following order is passed. 6.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in FDR pursuant to the order of this Court if any, with accrued interest thereon if any, shall be disbursed to the claimants, by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after following due procedure, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. 6.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. 7. In view of above, Civil Application No.1 of 2014 for stay would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.