JUDGMENT : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. The present group of Appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 rendered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 186, 191 and 190 of 1994. By the said judgment, the Tribunal has held the driver of the Luxury Bus having Registration No. GJ-1-U-1266 negligent in the vehicular accident in question and held the Insurance Company of the said Luxury Bus i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited, appellant herein, liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 2. The case in nutshell is as under: 2.1 That on 23.9.1993 at around 02.00 a.m. on Ahmedabad-Rajkot National highway in between Chotila and Sayla near Doliya boundary, one Maruti Car bearing Registration No. GJ-3B-9215 and Luxury Bus having Registration No. GJ-1-U-1266 collided with each other and two persons sitting in the Maruti Car lost their lives and one person sitting in the Maruti Car got injured. 2.2 It is further the case of the claimants that on the said date, Prabhatbhai was driving the Maruti Car and along with him Dipakkumar Khandheriya and Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha and one Mahendrabhai Raydhanbhai Karetha were travelling. They were returning from Gandhinagar to Rajkot and the said Maruti Car was being driven by Prabhatbhai Karetha in a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. They had left Gandhinagar in late evening and when they reached near Doliya boundary at around 2.00 a.m. on 23.9.1993, Luxury Bus No. GJ-1-U-1266 which was operated in the name of Pavan Travels which was driven by Devshibhai Mashribhai Mer in full speed and in negligent manner, came in wrong side and dashed with the said Maruti Car and due to the said accident, Dipakkumar Khandheriya and Prabhatbai R. Karetha succumbed to the injuries on the spot whereas Mahendrabhai Karetha sustained injuries and he was immediately shifted to the Hospital. 2.3 Thereafter, FIR was lodged, panchnama was drawn, map was also drawn, etc. formalities were carried out by the concerned Agency. Legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 186 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 80 Lacs from the respondents herein. Similarly, legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 191 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 35 Lacs. formalities were carried out by the concerned Agency. Legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 186 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 80 Lacs from the respondents herein. Similarly, legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 191 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 35 Lacs. Likewise, injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 190 of 1994 and claimed compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs from the respondents i.e. driver, owner and Insurance Company i.e. present appellant. They also produced several documents in support of their claim. 2.4 The appellant Insurance Company resisted the claims by filing written statement at Exh.29 and 24 in the respective Claim Petitions and contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car and also contended that the amount claimed by way of compensation is on the higher side. 2.5 The Tribunal framed issues and after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence led, ultimately held that the driver of the Luxury Bus having Registration No. GJ-1-U-1266 is solely negligent in driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in the vehicular accident in question and the appellant Insurance Company being the insurer of the vehicle in question is liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 69 Lacs towards compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya (Claimants of MACP No. 186 of 1994), awarded an amount of Rs. 26,10,000/- towards compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha (Claimants of MACP No. 191 of 1994) and awarded an amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- towards compensation to the injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha (MACP No. 190 of 1994). The above amount was awarded by the Tribunal with running interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the amount is realized by the respective claimants. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present three appeals. The appeals came to be admitted by the coordinate Bench of this Court by common order dated 30.6.2005. As far as execution of the judgment and award in each Appeal is concerned, the same was stayed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.6.2005 passed in Civil Application Nos. The appeals came to be admitted by the coordinate Bench of this Court by common order dated 30.6.2005. As far as execution of the judgment and award in each Appeal is concerned, the same was stayed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.6.2005 passed in Civil Application Nos. 5126, 5127 and 5128 of 2005 on condition that entire amount is deposited by the appellant Insurance Company and the said amount was ordered to be invested with a Nationalized Bank for a period of three years, extendable in case appeals are not heard within that period. 3.1 Thereafter, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.4.2006 passed in Civil Application No. 5126 of 2005 ordered to disburse an amount of Rs. 30 Lacs in favour of legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya. 4. By the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 7.1.2022, these appeals were listed before this Court for final hearing. The said order reads as under: “By order of the Honourable the Chief Justice: Place before the Bench presided by Honourable Mr. Justice A.J. Desai till final disposal. Dated: 07.01.2022.” 5. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in all these appeals has mainly raised two points that (i) there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car in which the deceased persons as well as injured were travelling and (ii) the amount awarded as compensation, particularly the calculation with regard to additional future income of the deceased persons, multiplier to be applied, considering the age of the deceased and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal while deciding the claim petitions. 6. Mr. Mazmudar in support of his submissions, has taken us through the Panchnama Exh.56 as well as map Exh.140 prepared on the site of accident showing the position of both the vehicles. 6. Mr. Mazmudar in support of his submissions, has taken us through the Panchnama Exh.56 as well as map Exh.140 prepared on the site of accident showing the position of both the vehicles. He would further submit that Panchnama shows width of the road and the position of the vehicles which suggest that the driver of the Luxury Bus was driving the Bus in correct side and considering the damage caused on the front side of the Maruti Car suggest that it was a head-on collision between the two vehicles and, therefore, the driver of the Maruti Car was also equally liable for rash and negligent in driving the said vehicle and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have held the driver of the Luxury Bus solely negligent in driving the said vehicle. He would further submit that front (driver) side of the Luxury Bus has been shown as damaged whereas the front side of the Maruti Car is shown as completely crashed which suggest that it is a head-on collision. 6.1 By taking us through the deposition of injured, namely, Mahendra Raydhan who has been examined at Exh.135 would submit that even the Maruti Car was being driven at the speed of 70 Kms. per hour which establishes that the said vehicle was also being driven in full speed. He would further submit that this witness has also stated that the incident has taken place at a curvature and, therefore, there are all possibilities that the driver of the Car has lost his control while taking turn and had dashed with the Luxury Bus. He would further submit that this also makes it clear that the vehicle in which the deceased and injured were travelling were also being driven in rash and negligent manner. He, therefore, would submit that the driver of the Maruti Car may be held contributory negligent for the accident which had taken place at around 2.00 hours in the morning and, therefore, the Insurance Company of the Maruti CAr may be held liable to pay 50% compensation. 6.2 As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal to legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya (Claimants of MACP No. 186 of 1994) is concerned, he would submit that the Tribunal has committed grave error in calculating the future loss of income of deceased Dipakkumar. He would further submit that deceased Dipakkumar used to file Income Tax Returns. 6.2 As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal to legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya (Claimants of MACP No. 186 of 1994) is concerned, he would submit that the Tribunal has committed grave error in calculating the future loss of income of deceased Dipakkumar. He would further submit that deceased Dipakkumar used to file Income Tax Returns. As far as Assessment Year 1989-90 is concerned, the said Dipakkumar has shown his yearly income of Rs. 47,785/- (Exh.127), Rs. 56,130/- for 1990-91 (Exh.195) and Rs. 66,784/- for 1991-92 (Exh.192). Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered his income maximum to the tune of Rs. 66,784/- and ought to have considered the future loss of income accordingly. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in believing the said documents i.e. Exh.113 and 112 by which the Income Tax Department had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,00,680/- and Rs. 7,11,293/- for the Years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. He would further submit that the Income Tax Department might have considered the income of the deceased as mentioned above, but the deceased had assessed his income at Rs. 56,130/- and Rs. 66,784/- respectively and, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the future loss of income accordingly. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased at Rs. 35,000/- per month taking average of three years i.e. 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, which is not the correct amount in view of his last self assessment income at Rs. 66,784/- p.a. Mr. Mazmudar would further submit that as far as future prospects of earning capacity of an individual is concerned, the Tribunal has again committed an error in adding Rs. 13,500/- per month relying upon a communication in the nature of appointment of deceased Dipakkumar dated 28.7.1992 (Exh.95) by which the deceased was appointed as Managing Director which was to be established after floating the same as a Public Limited Company and inviting public by issuing shares in the name of Ojas Appliances Public Limited. He would further submit that by the said appointment letter, the monthly salary of the deceased was to be fixed at Rs. 1,08,000/- p.a. and was also going to get commission on net profit at 1% subject to ceiling limit of Rs. He would further submit that by the said appointment letter, the monthly salary of the deceased was to be fixed at Rs. 1,08,000/- p.a. and was also going to get commission on net profit at 1% subject to ceiling limit of Rs. 54,000/- p.a. He would further submit that though deceased was appointed in the Company and before the Company begins, deceased Dipakkumar who was appointed as Managing Director lost his life in the accident in question and could not get the aforesaid remuneration as Managing Director. He would further submit that even as per this appointment letter, the deceased was going to get maximum amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- p.a. He would further submit that the Tribunal has committed an error in adding this amount which was never going to be paid as additional amount and instead, the Tribunal could have granted future prospect in accordance with law. He would further submit that deceased Dipakkumar was aged about 41 years at the time of accident and was self employed and, therefore, as per the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , while answering the reference, Full Bench has issued certain guidelines regarding principle of standardization, determination of future prospects and selection of multiplier. He would further submit that considering the above decision, the deceased would be entitled for additional 25% of his loss of future prospects and, therefore, the Tribunal could have added only 25% for calculating the loss of future prospects instead of adding an amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- p.a. He, therefore, would submit that by applying the aforesaid method, appropriate compensation be awarded to the claimants. 6.3 By relying upon the decision of Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , Mr. Mazmudar would submit that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 which is contrary to the above decision and considering the age of the deceased of 41 years, multiplier of 14 can be applied and, accordingly, the amount of compensation be reduced. He, therefore, would submit that considering the overall aspects of the matter, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal be quashed and set aside and be suitably modified accordingly. 6.4 Mr. He, therefore, would submit that considering the overall aspects of the matter, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal be quashed and set aside and be suitably modified accordingly. 6.4 Mr. Mazmudar would further submit that compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha is much on the higher side. By taking us through the observations and conclusions reached in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment, he would submit that the Tribunal has presumed his monthly income only on the deposition of his widow and committed an error in relying upon the Income Tax returns submitted qua the income of the deceased, in view of the fact that the Income Tax returns were of the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 i.e. subsequent to death of the deceased. He would further submit that the Tribunal has also committed an error in calculating the prospective income of 50% of the monthly income of the deceased at the time of incident as well as applying the multiplier and deduction to his personal expenses. He would further submit that this case is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (Supra). He, therefore, would submit that the monthly income of the deceased could not have been more than Rs. 7,000/- per month and, therefore, compensation be calculated accordingly. He has also taken us through the compensation paid to the injured i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha and would submit that the same is also on the higher side. 6.5 Mr. Mazmudar would further submit that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding an amount of Rs. 26,10,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 191 of 1994 is concerned, the same is on the higher side. He would further submit that as per the evidence led by the claimants, income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, the prospective income can be considered at Rs. 2,800/- and multiplier of 16 in place of 17 ought to have been awarded. He, therefore, would submit that the amount of compensation may be reduced accordingly. 2,800/- and multiplier of 16 in place of 17 ought to have been awarded. He, therefore, would submit that the amount of compensation may be reduced accordingly. 6.6 As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 190 of 1994 is concerned, he would submit that the multiplier of 15 should have been applied considering the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that hence, the amount under the head of compensation for loss of future income would come to Rs. 7,500 x 15% loss of Rs. 1,125/- per month x 12 x 15 = Rs. 2,02,500/- instead of Rs. 2,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Mazmudar, therefore, would submit that the appeals may be allowed and just and proper compensation be awarded to the claimants and the same may be reduced accordingly. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants in all these three appeals has opposed the appeals and would submit that on the contrary, the Tribunal has committed an error and has paid less compensation as the claimants would be entitled for higher compensation in view of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala and Others vs. Gangalakshmamma and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 150 . He would submit that as per the last income tax return, the income of the deceased was Rs. 7,11,000/- and, therefore, he would be entitled for more amount. He would further submit that though the appeal has not been preferred by any of the legal heirs, this Court can order the appellant Insurance Company to pay higher compensation to the legal heirs. He would further submit that the accident has taken place due to sheer negligence on the part of the driver of the luxury bus which is emerged from the Panchnama as well as map prepared by the Police authorities. He would further submit that the accident has taken place due to sheer negligence on the part of the driver of the luxury bus which is emerged from the Panchnama as well as map prepared by the Police authorities. By taking us through the Panchnama Exh.56 as well as map Exh.140 prepared on the site showing the position of both the vehicles, he would submit that the driver of the luxury bus has crossed middle line and the bus is lying on the side from which the vehicles do come from the opposite direction and the car of the deceased was on the correct side (left side) of the road whereas the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the right side of the Car which suggests that it is not a head-on collision. He, therefore, would submit that the present appeals may be dismissed and higher compensation may be awarded to the legal heirs. 8. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal and have also gone through the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal. We have also scrutinized in detail the Panchnama Exh.56 as well as map Exh.140 prepared on the site showing the position of both the vehicles. The same suggests that the luxury bus was driven in full speed and at the point of incident, it was being driven on the wrong side in the night hours which dashed with the right side of the car in which two persons lost their lives and one person sustained injuries. Therefore, as far as the submission made by learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar appearing for the Insurance Company regarding contributory negligence is concerned, we hereby hold that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding the driver of the luxury bus as sole negligent for driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner which resulted into death of two persons and injury to one person. 9. As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal to legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya (Claimants of MACP No. 186 of 1994) is concerned, it is true that deceased Dipakkumar had filed Income Tax Returns of Rs. 47,785/- for Assessment Year 1989-90, Rs. 56,130/- for A.Y. 1990-91 and Rs. 66,784/- A.Y. for 1991-92. 9. As far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal to legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya (Claimants of MACP No. 186 of 1994) is concerned, it is true that deceased Dipakkumar had filed Income Tax Returns of Rs. 47,785/- for Assessment Year 1989-90, Rs. 56,130/- for A.Y. 1990-91 and Rs. 66,784/- A.Y. for 1991-92. However, the Income Tax Department had assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,00,680/- and Rs. 7,11,293/- for the Assessment Years 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased at Rs. 35,000/- per month taking average of three years i.e. 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. However, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in adding Rs. 13,500/- per month as income of the deceased relying upon a communication in the nature of appointment of deceased Dipakkumar dated 28.7.1992 (Exh.95) by which the deceased was appointed as Managing Director which was to be established after floating the same as a Public Limited Company and inviting public by issuing shares in the name of Ojas Appliances Public Limited, as the maximum amount which the deceased was going to earn is Rs. 1,62,000/- p.a. However, as per the assessment made by the Income Tax Department, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs. 35,000/-. Further, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (Supra), the deceased would be entitled for 25% prospective income at Rs. 8,750/-. Hence, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs. 43,750/- per month. Further, considering the family members of the deceased, 1/4th self deduction would apply which comes to Rs. 10,937/- and deducting the said amount from Rs. 43,750/- it would come to Rs. 32,813/-. Hence, taking round figure of the said amount, we fix the dependency benefit of the deceased at Rs. 33,000/- per month. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others and considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 14 would apply. Hence, Rs. 33,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 55,44,000/- + Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses which is required to be added 10% each for every three years. Hence, Rs. 33,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 55,44,000/- + Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses which is required to be added 10% each for every three years. Hence, in all, legal heirs of deceased Dipakkumar Khandheriya (Claimants of MACP No. 186 of 1994) would be entitled to Rs. 57,37,000/- towards compensation in place of Rs. 69,00,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the award dated 28.1.2005 passed by learned Claims Tribunal Auxiliary, Surendranagar in MACP No. 186 of 1994 is modified to the above extent. Rest of the award shall remain as it is. First Appeal No. 1786 of 2005 stands partly allowed to the above extent. In view of disposal of the First Appeal, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of. 10. As far as compensation of Rs. 26,10,000/- awarded to the legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha (claimants of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 191 of 1994) is concerned, as per the case of the claimants, the deceased was sole proprietor of Bharat Refrigeration at Rajkot and was also earning in Nirali Enterprise and beneficiary as Administrator of Bharat Refrigeration Services at Rajkot. We have also examined the income tax returns of the deceased which shows income of the deceased at Rs. 31,300/- for Assessment Year 1992-93, Rs. 82,500/- at Rs. 1993-94 and Rs. 69,149/- for Assessment Year 1994-95. Hence, we are of the opinion that as per the evidence led by the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,700/- per month in place of Rs. 10,000/-. Further, prospective income is required to be considered at 40% which comes to Rs. 2800/- and hence, income of the deceased can be considered at Rs. 10,500/- and considering the family members of the deceased, 1/4th self deduction is required to be applied which comes to Rs. 2625 and deducting the said amount from Rs. 10,500/- the amount towards income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7875/-. Hence, round figure of Rs. 7900/- is considered as income of the deceased per month. Further, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), and others, the multiplier of 16 in place of 17 is to be applied. Hence, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. Hence, round figure of Rs. 7900/- is considered as income of the deceased per month. Further, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (Supra), and others, the multiplier of 16 in place of 17 is to be applied. Hence, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 7900/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 15,16,800/- towards loss of dependency benefit + Rs. 16,500/- towards loss to estate, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses which is required to be added 10% each for every three years. Hence, in all, legal heirs of deceased Prabhatbhai Raydhanbhai Karetha (claimants of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 191 of 1994) would be entitled to Rs. 17,49,800/- towards compensation in place of Rs. 26,10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the award dated 28.1.2005 passed by learned Claims Tribunal Auxiliary, Surendranagar in MACP No. 191 of 1994 is modified to the above extent. First Appeal No. 1788 of 2005 stands partly allowed to the above extent. 11. Now, as far as the compensation awarded to injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 190 of 1994 is concerned, the injured was beneficiary in Bharat Refrigeration Services-HUF and used to earn Rs. 60,000/- per year. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month + 50% as future prospective and hence, the amount comes to Rs. 7,500/- and 15% loss would come to of Rs. 1125/- x 12 x 16. Hence, the amount towards future loss of income/earning capacity of the injured comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- in place of Rs. 2,70,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the injured would be entitled for Rs. 45,000/- towards compensation for pain, shock and suffering in place of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, considering the injuries sustained and the period of recovery of the injured. Further, the injured claimant would be entitled for Rs. 25,000/- towards actual loss of income for three months, Rs. 17,000/- for medical expenses and treatment and Rs. 17,000/- towards attendant charges, special diet and transportation. Hence, in all, injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 190 of 1994 would come to Rs. 3,20,000/- towards compensation. Further, the injured claimant would be entitled for Rs. 25,000/- towards actual loss of income for three months, Rs. 17,000/- for medical expenses and treatment and Rs. 17,000/- towards attendant charges, special diet and transportation. Hence, in all, injured claimant i.e. Mahendrabhai Karetha of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 190 of 1994 would come to Rs. 3,20,000/- towards compensation. But, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,40,000/- we do not find any other material to reduce the said amount of compensation. Hence, the award dated 28.1.2005 passed by learned Claims Tribunal Auxiliary, Surendranagar in MACP No. 190 of 1994 is confirmed. 12. First Appeal No. 1787 of 2005 stands dismissed. Registry is directed to send the Records and Proceedings to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.