JUDGMENT : R.M.CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No.487 of 2009, the appellant – Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal. 2.1 That on 09.02.2009 at about 12.30 at midnight, the deceased Birendrasingh Omkarsingh Thakur and his grandfather Arjunsingh Mohansingh were returning to their residence on Honda Activa (scooter) bearing registration no.GJ-1-JM-4181 and when he reached near Hatkeshwar Bus Stand, an Eicher truck bearing registration no.GJ-16-X-7564 being driven in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed dashed with active scooter with front right side of the truck and dragged the active along with deceased and pillion rider upto 40 feet, as a result of which the deceased sustained serious fatal injuries. An FIR being C.R.No.63/2009 lodged with Bamol Police Station and the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act came to be filed claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 2.2 The claimants examined one Jagdishbhai Amarsinhbhai Mistry as an eye witness at Exhibit 53. The claimants also relied upon the documentary evidence, such as, FIR at Exhibit 41, panchnama of the scene of accident at Exhibit 42, charge-sheet at Exhibit 43, inquest panchnama at Exhibit 44, post-mortem report of the deceased at Exhibit 45, Sanad of deceased issued by Bar Council of Gujarat at Exhibit 46, identity card of the deceased as a Notary at Exhibit 47, PAN Card of deceased at Exhibit 48, school leaving certificate of deceased at Exhibit 49, original income tax return for the A.Y.2007-2008, Taxpayer’s counterfoil at Exhibit 51 and original income tax return of deceased for A.Y.2008-2009. 2.3 It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the accident occurred because of sole negligence of the driver of the truck. It was further case of the claimants and more particularly the wife of the deceased in her oral deposition at Exhibit 40 that the deceased was a practicing advocate and was 49 years of old at the time of accident and earning Rs.18,000/- per month as advocate notary. It was further case of the claimants and more particularly the wife of the deceased in her oral deposition at Exhibit 40 that the deceased was a practicing advocate and was 49 years of old at the time of accident and earning Rs.18,000/- per month as advocate notary. The Tribunal after considering the FIR at Exhibit 41 and panchnama at Exhibit 42 came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligence. Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased, who was working as notary, at Rs.11,700/- per month and after granting additional compensation by way of prospective income to the extent of 30% deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,79,492/- under the head of deficiency benefit. Over-and above the same, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of estate, Rs.50,000/- as loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- funeral expenses and while partly allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.18,84,500/- as total compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the appellant – Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Dr.Rushang Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and Mr.Hiren Modi, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants. Though served, nobody has appeared for other respondents. 4. Dr.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was sole negligence. He contended that it was also contended before the Tribunal that the activa scooter was being driven on the wrong side and, therefore, according to Mr.Mehta, learned counsel, the deceased, as driver of the activa scooter was, equally negligent for the accident in question. 4.1 Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Dr.Mehta, learned counsel contended that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount under the head of conventional which should be reduced to Rs.70,000/- as the other claimants were major i.e. children of the deceased and, therefore, they would not be entitled any parental consortium. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Dr.Mehta, learned counsel contended that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount under the head of conventional which should be reduced to Rs.70,000/- as the other claimants were major i.e. children of the deceased and, therefore, they would not be entitled any parental consortium. He, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly by allowing the appeal as prayed for. 5. Mr.Modi, learned counsel appearing for the claimants opposed this appeal. He contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence more particularly panchnama at Exhibit 42. Relying upon the panchnama at Exhibit 42, Mr.Modi, learned counsel contended that the same clearly suggests that the truck was being driven in excessive speed to such an extent and after dashed with the activa scooter, the same dragged along with the truck for about 40 feet. According to him, the same indicates the excessive speed of the truck. He has contended that as far as the quantum is concerned, this Court may pass appropriate order keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He contended that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as the Tribunal has granted just and adequate compensation. 6. No other or further submissions, grounds or contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, following questions arise in this appeal for determination of this Court. (a) Whether the Tribunal has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the truck involved in the accident was solely negligence or not? (b) Whether the Tribunal has committed any error in granting compensation under the head of conventional or not? 8. As far as negligence is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the FIR at Exhibit 41 and the panchnama at Exhibit 42 as well as oral evidence of one Jagdishbhai Amarsinhbhai Mistry as an eye witness at Exhibit 53. Upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, it clearly transpires that after accident, the driver of the truck ran away from the scene of accident and he was not examined by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, it clearly transpires that after accident, the driver of the truck ran away from the scene of accident and he was not examined by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The evidence on record establishes that the speed of the truck was excessive in nature and the fact that the scooter was dragged upto 40 feet which established that the accident occurred only because of the sole negligence of the driver of the truck as rightly held by the Tribunal. Even upon re-appreciating the deposition of the eye witness, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent. Thus, the question No.(a) raised in this appeal answered accordingly. 9. As far as the quantum is concerned, the compensation awarded under the head of deficiency benefits does not require any modification. However, as far as the compensation under the conventional head is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,05,000/- including funeral expenses which deserves to be reduced to Rs.70,000/- following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the question No.(b) is answered accordingly. 10. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the respondents – claimants would be entitled to the compensation as under:- Rs.17,79,492/- Depenency benefits Rs. 15,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 40,000/- Loss of consortium (wife) Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.18,49,492/- Total compensation 11. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondents – claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.18,49,492/-. The Tribunal shall refund an amount of Rs.35,008/- (Rs.18,84,500/- - Rs.18,49,492/-) along with proportionate interest and costs back to the appellant – Insurance Company forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 12. The connected civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.