JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Introduction - 1.1 All these appeals arise out of the same accident and the set of evidence adduced before the Tribunal is also analogous. All the claim petitions were dealt with together by the Tribunal and all the appeals were therefore heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 1.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 27.02.2009, passed in MACP Nos. 614/98 and allied claim petitions, insurance company of the Matador, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd., has preferred First Appeals No. 2849 of 2009 to 2862 of 2009 and the insurance company of Truck involved in the accident, i.e. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has preferred First Appeals No. 845 of 2010, 877 to 887 of 2010 and the other insurance company, whereas the original claimants have preferred First Appeals No.3266 of 2010 to 3278 of 2010. 1.3 The insurance companies have preferred these appeals on the ground of liability and negligence whereas the original claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement. 2. Heard Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the Matador bearing registration No. GJ-10T-1836 involved in the accident, Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the truck bearing registration no.GJ-03-T-3428, Mr. Tushar L. Sheth, learned advocate for the original claimants in all the appeals and Mr. Brijesh Trivedi, learned advocate for legal heirs of Shri Ibrahimbhai Karimbhai Kalgathar and Mr. Nagesh Sood, learned advocate for the National Insurance Co. Ltd. in the respective First Appeals. We have also perused the original Record and proceedings. 3. Occurrence of accident – 3.1 The accident occurred on 14.03.1998 at about 7.00 pm on Gondal Virpur National Highway No.8. As the record unfolds, about 14 persons ordinarily staying at Jamnagar, were proceeding towards Virpur for darshan of Jalaram Dada in Matador bearing registration No. GJ-10T-1836. We have also perused the original Record and proceedings. 3. Occurrence of accident – 3.1 The accident occurred on 14.03.1998 at about 7.00 pm on Gondal Virpur National Highway No.8. As the record unfolds, about 14 persons ordinarily staying at Jamnagar, were proceeding towards Virpur for darshan of Jalaram Dada in Matador bearing registration No. GJ-10T-1836. As the record further indicates, the Matador was being driven at a moderate speed and about about 7.00 pm between Gondal and Virpur National Highway No. 8A, a truck bearing registration no.GJ-03-T-3428 being driven in rash and negligent manner and according to the claimants, on wrong side, dashed with Matador causing excessive damage to the Matador and in the said accident, 6 males, 4 females and one child succumbed to the fatal injuries and four travellers of the Matador sustained serious injuries. The driver of the Matador also expired in the accident. An FIR was lodged with the Gondal Taluka Police Station being I-CR No. 83/98. 4. Details of the claim petitions filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Jamnagar 4.1 Heirs of deceased Kamleshbhai, i.e., parents and elder brothers preferred MACP No.614/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 51,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Kamleshbhai was running business of brass parts in the name and style of Mahavir Industries and used to export it in foreign countries. The claimants claimed that deceased Kamleshbhai was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and was also paying income tax. It is also a matter of fact that wife of Kamlesh, i.e., Varsha @ Vandana also died in the same accident. 4.2 Heirs of deceased Giteshkumar, i.e., wife and mother preferred MACP No.615/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 17,50,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Giteshkumar was running business of brass parts in the name and style of Yash Metals and used to export it in foreign countries. The claimants claimed that deceased Giteshkumar was earning Rs.7,000/- to 7,500/- per month and was also paying income tax. 4.3. Heirs of deceased Mayurbhai, i.e., parents and elder brothers preferred MACP No.616/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 51,00,000/-. The claimants claimed that deceased Giteshkumar was earning Rs.7,000/- to 7,500/- per month and was also paying income tax. 4.3. Heirs of deceased Mayurbhai, i.e., parents and elder brothers preferred MACP No.616/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 51,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Mayurbhai was running business of bangle pipes in the name and style of Mayur Plast and used to export it in foreign countries. The claimants claimed that deceased Mayurbhai was earning Rs.6,300/- per month. 4.4. Heirs of deceased Hareshbhai, i.e., mother and brother preferred MACP No.617/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Hareshbhai was running business of bangle pipes in the name and style of Khushali Brass Industries and used to export it in foreign countries. The claimants claimed that deceased Hareshbhai was earning Rs.55,000 - 60,000/- per month and was paying income tax. 4.5. Heirs of deceased Rekhaben Mayurbhai, i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law preferred MACP No.618/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Rekhaben was taking tuition classes in the name of Mayur tuition class and was earning Rs.3,500/- p.m. 4.6. Heirs of deceased Varshaben Kamleshbhai, i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law preferred MACP No.619/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Varshaben was a housewife. The claimants claimed Rs.3,700/- per month. 4.7. Father of deceased minor Dhara preferred MACP No.624/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimant that deceased Dhara a minor aged just 8 months and claimed for compensation at Rs.2,00,000/-. 4.8. Heirs of deceased Shilpaben Dipakkumar, i.e., father-in-law and mother-in-law preferred MACP No.625/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Shilpaben was having four powerlooms in Mumbai and was also taking tuition. The claimants claimed that deceased Shilpaben was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. 4.9. Heirs of deceased Dipakkumar, i.e., mother and mother preferred MACP No.626/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/-. 10,50,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Shilpaben was having four powerlooms in Mumbai and was also taking tuition. The claimants claimed that deceased Shilpaben was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. 4.9. Heirs of deceased Dipakkumar, i.e., mother and mother preferred MACP No.626/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Dipakkumar was doing business of electronic items from his shop named Sunrise Electronics. The claimants claimed that deceased Dipakkuar was earning Rs.6,850/- to Rs.7,000/- per month and was paying income tax. 4.10. Heirs of deceased Nemitaben, i.e., husband preferred MACP No.627/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Nemitaben was in the profession of cloth designing and printing. The claimants claimed that deceased Nemitaben was earning Rs.50,000 - 60,000/- per month and was paying income tax. 4.11. Injured claimant Bharatbhai Veljibhai preferred MACP No.742/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/-. It was the case of the injured claimant that he was in the business of manufacturing brass valves in the name of "A.V. Brass" and supplying it to renowned cycle companies. It was the say of the injured claimant that out of the said business, he used to earn Rs.5,000/- p.m and was paying income tax. 4.12. Injured claimant Shital Prakashbhai preferred MACP No.814/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/-. It was the case of the injured claimant that she was in the vocation of sweing and embroidery work and was earning Rs.3,000/- to 3,500/- per month. 4.13. Injured claimant Prakashbhai preferred MACP No.957/98 under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It was the case of the injured claimant that he was working as clerk in the Jamnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and was also doing accounting work and used to earn Rs.4,235/- to Rs.4,435/- per month and had to undergo extensive treatment and spend for medical expenses. 5. Details of evidence adduced in each of the claim petitions – 5.1 The claimants of MACP No. 614/98 relied upon oral deposition of Chetanbhai Nemchandbhai Galaiya at exhibit 40. 5. Details of evidence adduced in each of the claim petitions – 5.1 The claimants of MACP No. 614/98 relied upon oral deposition of Chetanbhai Nemchandbhai Galaiya at exhibit 40. The claimants also relied upon documentary evidence, viz., the income tax returns of M/s. Mahavir Industries at exhibit 106C for the assessment year 1996-1997, exhibit 107C for the assessment year 1997-1998, exhibit 108C for the assessment year 1998-1999, exhibit 109C - Registration of firms certificate, 110C, Deed of partnership, which shows that the deceased Kamleshbhai had 40% share in the profit and loss. FIR at exhibit 87C, panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 87C, PM note of the deceased at exhibit 88C. 5.2 The claimants of MACP No. 615/98 examined one Kanchanben Jaysukhal Shah at exhibit 51, being mother of the deceased. The claimants claimed that income of the deceased was Rs.7,500/- per month. However, they did not produce any documentary evidence. The claimants relied upon exhibit 119C being inquest panchnama and exhibit 120C-PM Note of deceased Gitesh J. Shah, exhibits 121C to 124C being certificates of educational qualification of the deceased, exhibit 125C, letter of sales tax officer, exhibit 176C pertains to documents given by income tax department. 5.3 Claimants of MACP No. 616/98 relied upon deposition of one Mohanlal Padamsi Shah, father of the deceased at exhibit 49. It was the case of the claimants that son of the claimants was running business of bangle pipes and was earning Rs.6,300/- per month and also used to pay income tax. The claimants relied upon the copy of the inquest panchnama at exhibit 126C and PM report of the deceased Mayurbhai at exhibit 127C, certificates of educational qualification of deceased Mayurbhai at exhibit 128C, income tax returns for the assessment year 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 at exhibit 176C. 5.4 Claimants of MACP No. 617/98 relied upon oral deposition of Ashokbhai Javerbhai at exhibit 52. It was the case of the claimants that deceased Hareshbhai was unmarried and was doing business of brass parts and was earning Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per year. The claimants relied upon the income tax returns of the assessment years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 at exhibit 177. 5.5 The claimants of MACP No. 618/98 relied upon oral deposition of Mohanlal Padamsi Shah at exhibit 50. 55,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per year. The claimants relied upon the income tax returns of the assessment years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 at exhibit 177. 5.5 The claimants of MACP No. 618/98 relied upon oral deposition of Mohanlal Padamsi Shah at exhibit 50. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased Rekhaben was daughter-in-law of the claimants no.1 and 2 and was a commerce graduate. It was the case of the claimants that the the deceased was aged 22 years and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month by giving tuition to the children. The claimants have also relied upon the PM note of the deceased at exhibit 332C and the inquest panchnama of the deceased Rekhaben at exhibit 134C. However, the claimants did not adduce any documentary evidence in particular to prove the income of the deceased Rekhaben. 5.6 In MACP No. 619/18, the claimants have relied upon oral deposition of Chetan Nemchandbhai Galaiya at exhibit 41. It was the case of the claimants that both the son and daughter-in-law had died in the same accident and the deceased Varshaben @ Vandanaben Kamleshbhai was earning Rs. 3,700/- per month by doing some job on computer and was aged 23 years on the date of the accident. The claimants relied upon inquest panchnama of the deceased Varshaben at exhibit 137C, however, did not produce any evidence to prove the income of the deceased Varshaben at Rs.3,700/- per month. 5.7 The claimants of MACP No. 622/98 relied upon the deposition of Harsukhbhai Bhagwanjibhai at exhibit 53 and also submitted written arguments at exhibit 139C. In order to prove the case of the claimants, that the deceased was a driver, who was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, did not produce any evidence to prove the income. The claimants relied upon the inquest panchnama of the deceased and PM report at 140 and the declaration of having expired at exhibit 141. 5.8 The claimants of MACP No. 624/98, relied upon the oral deposition of Bharatbhai at exhibit 47. The claimant relied upon copy of the PM Note of deceased at exhibit 1420C, birth certificate of deceased Dhara at exhibit 143C, inquest panchnama of deceased Dhara at exhibit 144C. 5.9 The claimants of MACP No. 625/98 relied upon deposition of one Somchand Raichand Shah at exhibit 42. The claimant relied upon copy of the PM Note of deceased at exhibit 1420C, birth certificate of deceased Dhara at exhibit 143C, inquest panchnama of deceased Dhara at exhibit 144C. 5.9 The claimants of MACP No. 625/98 relied upon deposition of one Somchand Raichand Shah at exhibit 42. It was the case of the claimant that the son Dipakkumar and daughter-in-law Shilpaben both have died in the same accident. It was further the case of the claimants that deceased Shilpaben had power loom at Mumbai and was earning Rs.4,000/- and used to also pay income tax. The claimants relied upon the inquest panchnama of deceased Shilpaben at exhibit 145C, PM note of deceased at exhibit 146C, School Leaving Certificate of deceased Shilpaben at exhibit 147C, the documentary evidence of having paid income tax for the assessment years 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998 at exhibit 178. 5.10 The claimants of MACP No.626/98 relied upon oral deposition of Somchand Raichand Shah at exhibit 43. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased Dipakkumar was running shop of electronic items and was earning Rs.7,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased Dipakkumar was 26 years old on the date of the accident. The claimants relied upon PM note at exhibit 148C, certificate of educational qualifications of the deceased as well as documents exhibiting that the deceased Dipakumar was also working as LIC agent at exhibit 149C to 153C, documents related to income tax of the deceased for the assessment year 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 at exhibit 179. 5.11 The claimants of MACP No. 627/98 relied upon the deposition of one Bharatbhai Veljibhai Shah at exhibit 48. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased Naimitaben was in the vocation of design printing and was earning Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per year and was paying income tax. The claimants relied upon inquest panchnama of the deceased at exhibit 154, copy of the PM note of the deceased at exhibit 155C and income tax documents for the assessment years 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1997-1998 at exhibit 180. 5.12 In MACP No.742/98, the injured claimant Bharatbhai Veljibhai himself was examined at exhibit 46. The claimants relied upon disability certificate, medical bills, operation charge, x-ray bills at exhibit 111C, 157 to 161. The purshis as regards permanent disability of the body as a whole to the tune of 24% at exhibit 80. 5.12 In MACP No.742/98, the injured claimant Bharatbhai Veljibhai himself was examined at exhibit 46. The claimants relied upon disability certificate, medical bills, operation charge, x-ray bills at exhibit 111C, 157 to 161. The purshis as regards permanent disability of the body as a whole to the tune of 24% at exhibit 80. 5.13 The injured claimant Shitalben Prakashbhai of MACP No. 814 of 1998 has examined herself at exhibit 45 and relied upon disability certificate at exhibit 122C and medical papers at exhibit 164 to 168. The pursis of the medical expenses incurred by the injured claimant at exhibit 72, purshis of agreed 30% permanent disability of the body as a whole at exhibit 78. 5.14 The injured claimant of MACP No. 957/98 has relied upon his own deposition at exhibit 44. The claimant-appellant relied upon disability certificate of Orthopaedic surgeon Hariya at exhibit 105C and medical papers at exhibit 114C, 116C and 117C, purshis of agreed permanent disability of the body as a whole to the tune of 20% at exhibit 79. 6. Findings of the Tribunal in each claim petition on quantum of award and negligence in each claim petition by the Tribunal – 6.1 In MACP No. 614/98, the claimants have claimed that the deceased Kamleshbhai was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month in the export business of brass parts and the claimants relied upon the income tax returns at exhibit 106C to 108C. The Tribunal considered the FIR at exhibit 86, the panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 87, PM Note of the deceased at exhibit 88, and came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to the accident. The Tribunal also considered that the age of the deceased Kamleshbhai was 24 years old, however, as the age of the elder brothers of the deceased was more than 24 years, the original claimants no. 3 to 5, being brothers of the deceased were not treated to be dependents. The Tribunal also considered that the age of the deceased Kamleshbhai was 24 years old, however, as the age of the elder brothers of the deceased was more than 24 years, the original claimants no. 3 to 5, being brothers of the deceased were not treated to be dependents. The Tribunal considered the income in the details of income tax paid at exhibits 106C to 108C and considered 40% share of the deceased in the partnership firm and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.1,16,208/- and considering the age of the claimants, i.e., the parents being 60 years and 53 years, applied multiplier of 11 and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and thus awarded a sum of Rs.8,52,192/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal also further awarded Rs.10,000/- for shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.8,67,192/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.2 In MACP No.615/98, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased Giteshbhai was married with Binaben, however, though she was made a party, the deceased did not have any relationship with her since five years. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was running business of brass parts in the name and style of Yash Metals and was earning Rs.7,500/- for which the claimants relied upon the income tax returns for the assessment yes 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. However, the said piece of evidence was not accepted. Still however, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.79,130/- and applying multiplier based upon the age of the claimants who are parents, applied multiplier of 5 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.2,63,767/- as loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses and thus while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,767/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.3 In MACP No. 616/98, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased Mayurbhai was engaged in the business of export of bangle pipes in the name and style of Mayur Plast and was earning Rs.6,500/-. 6.3 In MACP No. 616/98, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased Mayurbhai was engaged in the business of export of bangle pipes in the name and style of Mayur Plast and was earning Rs.6,500/-. Considering the evidence on record and more particularly, the inquest panchnama, PM note, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died because of the injuries sustained in the accident and relied upon the payment of income tax at exhibit 176, being details of last 3 years income tax returns, determined the income of the deceased at Rs.1,10,984/- per year and considering the age of the claimants, applied multiplier of 11 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs. 8,13,883/- as loss of dependency and awarded Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.8,28,883/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.4 In MACP No. 617 of 1998, it was the case of the claimant that deceased Hareshbhai was doing business of brass parts a in the name of Khushali Brass Industries and was earning Rs.55,000/- to 60,000/- per annum. Considering the evidence on record and more particularly, the inquest panchnama at exhibit 129C, PM note at exhibit 130C, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died because of the injuries sustained in the accident and relied upon the payment of income tax at exhibit 177, being details of last 3 years income tax returns, determined the income of the deceased at Rs.53,584/- per year and considering the age of the claimant, i.e., parents, applied multiplier of 8 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,85,782/- as loss of dependency and awarded Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.3,00,782/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 2,85,782/- as loss of dependency and awarded Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.3,00,782/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.5 In MACP No. 618/98, the Tribunal relied upon the oral deposition of the claimant Mohanlal Padamsi Shah at exhibit 50 and in absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased was Rs.3,500/-, considering Rekhaben to be housewife, determined the income of the deceased Rekhaben at Rs. 2,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.24,000/- per year. The Tribunal did not consider the original claimant no.3 who happens to be the elder brother-in-law of the deceased as dependent and considering the age of the claimants, i.e., father-in-law and mother-in-law, applied multiplier of 11 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- as loss of dependency, awarded Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.1,91,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.6 In MACP No. 619/98, relying upon the oral deposition of the claimant at exhibit 41, inquest panchnama at exhibit 136C and PM Note at exhibit 137C, came to the conclusion that the deceased died because of the serious fatal injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased Varshaben at Rs. 2,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.24,000/- per year and considering the age of the claimants, i.e., father-in-law and mother-in-law, applied multiplier of 11 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- as loss of dependency, awarded Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.1,91,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.7 In MACP No. 622/98, the Tribunal considering the oral deposition of one of the claimant at exhibit 53 and inquest panchnama at exhibit 139 and PM report at exhibit 140, determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 6.7 In MACP No. 622/98, the Tribunal considering the oral deposition of one of the claimant at exhibit 53 and inquest panchnama at exhibit 139 and PM report at exhibit 140, determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,200/- per month as the driver of the Matador and applied multiplier of 15 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency, awarded Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.2,79,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Against the said judgment and award, the insurance company has preferred an appeal, however, it appears that the claimants have not preferred any appeal. 6.8 In MACP No. 624/98, the Tribunal considered the aspect of the fact that the deceased was minor child and considering the oral deposition of the claimant at exhibit 47, considering the birth certificate of the deceased at Dhara at exhibit 143C and inquest panchnama at exhibit 144C, determined the notional income of the minor at Rs.15,000/- per annum and applying multiplier of 15 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.9 In MACP No. 625/98, the Tribunal appreciated the oral evidence of Somchand Raichand Shah at exhibit 42 and also considered the income tax returns at exhibit 178 and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.40,666/- p.a. and applying multiplier based upon the age of the claimants, at 13 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs.3,52,439/- as loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- as shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded Rs.3,67,439/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.10 In MACP No. 626/98, the Tribunal considered the deposition of one of the claimant at exhibit 43 and also considered the income tax returns at exhibit 179 for the assessment years 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and determined the average income of the deceased Dipakkumar to be 51,438/- who was aged 26 years and was doing business of electronic items and applying multiplier of 13 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,45,796/- as loss of dependency and Rs.10,000/- towards shock and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,60,796/- while partly allowing the claim petition with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.11 In MACP No. 627 of 1998, the Tribunal considered the oral deposition of Bharatbhai Velji Shah at exhibit 48 and also considered the income tax returns for the assessment years 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997 at exhibit 180 and after averaging the income shown of 3 years in the income tax returns, determined the income of the deceased at Rs.36,480/- p.a. and applying multiplier of 4,37,760/- as loss of dependency and Rs.10,000/- towards shock and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,52,760/- while partly allowing the claim petition with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.12 In MACP No. 742 of 1998, the Tribunal considered the oral deposition of the injured claimant at exhibit 46 and also considering the disability certificate at exhibit 111C and purshis at exhibit 80, as regards agreed permanent disability to the tune of 24% and medical papers at exhibit 157C to 163C, determined the income of the injured based upon the income tax returns at exhibit 181 for the assessment years 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1997-1998 as well as written arguments at exhibit 182 and determined the average yearly income of the injured claimant at Rs. 39,110/- per year, i.e., Rs. 3260/- per month and after applying multiplier of 18, awarded compensation under the head of Future loss of income to the tune of Rs. 1,68,912/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 19,560/- as actual loss of income and Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant, transportation and special diet and medicals at Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs. 1,68,912/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 19,560/- as actual loss of income and Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant, transportation and special diet and medicals at Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs. 5,48,472/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.13 In MACP No. 814 of 1998, the Tribunal considered the oral deposition of the injured claimant at exhibit 45 and also considering the disability certificate at exhibit 122C and purshis at exhibit 78, as regards agreed permanent disability to the tune of 30% and medical papers at exhibit 165 to 168 and the certificate of Pithadia Sewing Classes at exhibit 165 in absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income, determined the income of the injured, considering her to be housewife, determined the income at Rs.2,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.24,000/- per year and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,44,302/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 6.14 In MACP No. 957/98, the Tribunal considered the oral deposition of the injured claimant Prakashbhai at exhibit 44 and also considering the disability certificate at exhibit 105C and purshis at exhibit 60, as regards agreed permanent disability to the tune of 20% and medical papers at exhibits 114C to 117C. The Tribunal considered the fact that the injured claimant was working as Junior Clerk in Jamnagar Nagrik Cooperative Bank and had monthly salary of Rs.3035/- per month, i.e., Rs. 36,420/- p.a. and thus, while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.4,95,615/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 7. Findings of the Tribunal as regards liability and negligence: 7.1 It is found that the Tribunal in paras 73 to 76, at the first instance has considered the aspect of negligence. The Tribunal has noted the case of the claimants of MACP No. 614/98 that the truck had dashed with the Matador coming from the wrong side being driven in rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal also considered the FIR at exhibit 86 registered with Gondal Taluka Police Station being I-CR No. 83 of 1998. The Tribunal also considered the panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 87 and also considered the deposition of the driver of the truck Shri Vashram Nathubhai at exhibit 84. The Tribunal also considered the FIR at exhibit 86 registered with Gondal Taluka Police Station being I-CR No. 83 of 1998. The Tribunal also considered the panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 87 and also considered the deposition of the driver of the truck Shri Vashram Nathubhai at exhibit 84. The Tribunal based upon such piece of evidence, came to the conclusion that the truck and matador dashed with each other and also recorded the findings that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the truck. However, it is found in the later part of the judgment that while considering the arguments of the learned advocate for the claimants at exhibit 182 and insurance company, considering the same piece of evidence, i.e., the deposition of the truck driver Shri Vashram Nathubhai at exhibit 84, has noted the fact that in the cross-examination, the driver of the truck was admitted and the criminal case was registered against him and the same is pending. However, considering the license of the driver of the Matador who died in the accident at exhibit 94C and the license of the driver of the truck at exhibit 100C, as well as the documents issued by the RTO Office, at exhibits 98C and 99C, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck Vashram Nathubhai was issued a license on 12.01.1995, which was valid upto 22.04.2001. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that till 12.01.1995, Shri Vashram Nathubhai had license to driver Light Motor Vehicle and license to drive heavy motor vehicle was issued on 23.04.1998, i.e., after the date of accident, i.e., 14.03.1998. Considering the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), came to the conclusion that it is breach of Section 149 and prima facie the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the award. However, qua third party, i.e., claimants, the Tribunal was pleased to pass an order of pay and recover. Considering the panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 87C, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of both the vehicles and determined the composite negligence of the driver of both the vehicles in the ratio of 50:50. 8. Contentions 8.1 Mr. Considering the panchnama of the scene of occurrence at exhibit 87C, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of both the vehicles and determined the composite negligence of the driver of both the vehicles in the ratio of 50:50. 8. Contentions 8.1 Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the insurer of Matador involved in the accident contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of both the vehicles are equally negligent for causing the accident. Mr. Shelat further contended that the Tribunal has given contradictory findings in the judgment, as far as negligence is concerned. At the initial stage, the Tribunal has given the finding that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the truck, however, in the later part of the very judgment, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that driver of both the vehicles are negligent for the accident as it is a head-on-collision. Mr. Shelat contended that the Tribunal has completely overlooked the deposition of the eye-witness who are claimants in MACP Nos. 742/98, 814/98 and 957/98, the injured occupants of the Matador. Mr. Shelat contended that the having categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the Matador was being driven at moderate speed on the correct side whereas the truck, which was loaded with 240 bags of wheat, came on wrong side of the road while being driven in excessive speed and dashed with the Matador causing the accident. As far as quantum is concerned, Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has not raised any specific contention or ground, but has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) as far as the aspect of deduction towards personal expenses and multiplier is applicable. Mr. Shelat contended that the Tribunal has thus committed an error and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the driver of the Matador is negligent to the extent of 50%. According to Mr. Shelat, the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and appeals filed by the insurer of the Matador, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd. deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified. Mr. According to Mr. Shelat, the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and appeals filed by the insurer of the Matador, i.e., National Insurance Co. Ltd. deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel for the insurance company of the Matador also contended that 9% interest interest on the compensation awarded is much higher and the same may be reduced to 6%. 8.2 Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company of the truck bearing registration GJ-03-T-3428 involved in the accident, i.e., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. relied upon documents at exhibit 98C, 99C and 100C and contended that the injured driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. It was contended by Mr. Mazmudar that the driver of the truck was having valid license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport) from 12.01.1995 and that he obtained driving license to drive heavy goods vehicle on 23.04.1998, i.e., after the accident. Mr. Mazmudar contended that though the learned Tribunal has considered that on the date of the accident, the driver was not holding valid and effective license to drive the insured vehicle, i.e, the truck, the Tribunal has wrongly passed an order of pay and recover. Relying upon the provisions of Section 2(16) of the Act, it was contended by Mr. Mazmudar that the driver of the truck did not possess license to drive heavy goods vehicle. Mr. Mazmudar has relied upon observations made in para 84 made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), Mr. Mazmudar has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Babiben Babubhai reported in 2013 ACJ 2568 and has contended that as the driver of the truck was not holding license to drive heavy goods vehicle, hence, no order of pay and recover should be passed and the insurance company of the truck deserves to be exonerated. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel for the insurance company of the truck also contended that the percentage of interest be reduced to 6% instead of 9%. 8.3 Mr. Mr. Mazmudar, learned counsel for the insurance company of the truck also contended that the percentage of interest be reduced to 6% instead of 9%. 8.3 Mr. Tushar Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the claimants contended that in all the appeals relating to the cases where the occupants of the Matador have died in the accident, the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting any prospective income. Mr. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that in appeals arising out of fatal cases, the Tribunal has erred in deducting more amount towards personal expenses and applied wrong multiplier based upon the age of the claimant rather than the age of the deceased. Mr. Sheth contended that similarly, in First Appeal no. 3270 to 3272 of 2010, the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the income of the deceased even though specific evidence was led by the claimants before the Tribunal. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), Pranay Sethi (supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Somwati reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , it was contended by Mr. Sheth that in each of the appeals, the claimants would be entitled to consortium and appropriate compensation under different conventional heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses. In First Appeals No. 3276 to 3278 of 2010, Mr. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting any prospective income even though the injured claimants have suffered serious injuries. Mr. Sheth contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in granting meagre amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering in all these appeals and has granted lesser amount under the head of actual loss of income and attendant and transportation charges, which deserves to be enhanced. Mr. Sheth also contended that when the accident took place, the injured-original claimants were 28 years, 22 years and 25 years of age and because of the permanent disability of the body as a whole, have lost amenities of life, which has not been granted by the Tribunal. Mr. Mr. Sheth also contended that when the accident took place, the injured-original claimants were 28 years, 22 years and 25 years of age and because of the permanent disability of the body as a whole, have lost amenities of life, which has not been granted by the Tribunal. Mr. Sheth however candidly submitted that as far as the extent of disability is concerned, the claimants have agreed by filing purshis before the Tribunal and therefore, no further contention and grounds were raised by Mr. Sheth as far as percentage of degree of disability is concerned. Mr. Tushar Sheth also contended that the claimants would be also entitled to increase in amount by way of prospective income to the tune of 50% as the deceased were engaged in the permanent business. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Sheth contended that in each of the appeals filed by the claimants, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced and in each of the appeals, the claimants are entitled to just and adequate compensation, which is otherwise not granted by the Tribunal. 8.4 No other or further submissions, grounds or contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. Questions arising for consideration of this Court in these group of appeals - (A) Whether the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the driver of both the vehicles were negligent for the accident in the ratio of 50:50? (B) Whether it is open for the Tribunal to come to a contradictory finding once having come to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent? (C) Whether the Tribunal has committed any error in passing the order of pay and recover against the appellant insurance company as it has come to the conclusion that the driver of the truck involved in the accident did not have valid and subsisting license to drive heavy goods vehicle on the date of the accident or not? (D) Whether the Tribunal has granted just and adequate compensation in each claim petitions or not and whether the original claimants are entitled to further compensation to arrive at just and adequate compensation? (E) Whether the Tribunal has committed any error in granting 9% interest on the amount of award as quantified by the Tribunal or not and whether the claimants are entitled to 9% interest even on the enhanced compensation or not? (E) Whether the Tribunal has committed any error in granting 9% interest on the amount of award as quantified by the Tribunal or not and whether the claimants are entitled to 9% interest even on the enhanced compensation or not? 10. Findings : Considering the questions, we deem it fit to deal with the quantum aspect in each of the appeals - (1) First Appeal No. 3266 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 614 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.51,00,000/-. The deceased Kamleshbhai was running export business of brass parts in the name and style of Shree Mahavir Industries at Jamnagar. Shri Chetanbhai Nemchandbhai Galaiya was examined at exhibit 40 and the claimants have relied upon the income tax returns at exhibits 106C, 107C and 108C, which relates to assessment years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 respectively. The Tribunal considering the average income of 3 years as well as considering the partnership deed at exhibit 110C, has determined the income of the deceased Kamleshbhai at Rs.1,16,208/- p.a. Upon re-appreciation of such evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,16,208/- p.a. However, we find that the Tribunal has not granted any prospective income. As the deceased was self-employed-businessman, the claimants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the parents as claimants no.1 and 2 and by brothers, i.e. claimants no.3 to 5 and the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the Claimants No. 3 to 5 are aged 34, 32 and 24 years respectively and cannot be considered to be dependent on the deceased Kamleshbhai. However, we find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 11. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Kamleshbhai was 26 years old on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 17 and not 11. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Kamleshbhai was 26 years old on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 17 and not 11. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, considering the parents, to be only 2 dependents, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Over and above the same, the original claimants no. 1 and 2, i.e., the parents of Kamleshbhai would be entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 614/98 would be entitled to compensation as under – Rs.1,16,208/- (income p.a.) + 46,483/- (40% prospective income as the deceased was self employed-businessman) - Rs.54,230/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.1,08,461/- X 17 (multiplier) = Rs.18,43,837/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.18,43,837/- Filial consortium (parents) (Rs.40,000/- X 2) Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.19,53,837/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,67,192/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.10,86,645/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (2) First Appeal No. 3267 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 615 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.17,50,000/-. The deceased Giteshbhai was running business of manufacturing and exporting of brass parts in the name and style of Yash Metals. Kanchanben Jaysukhal Shah was examined at exhibit 51 and the claimants have relied upon documents of income tax which relates to assessment years 1996-1997, 1997-1998. However, the said documents were not exhibited. The Tribunal has correctly based the income of the deceased on such evidence and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.79,130/- p.a. However, no prospective income was granted. However, the said documents were not exhibited. The Tribunal has correctly based the income of the deceased on such evidence and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.79,130/- p.a. However, no prospective income was granted. As the deceased was self-employed-businessman, the claimants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the mother and wife and the wife has remarried. Therefore, the mother would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- as filial consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). However, we find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 5. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Giteshbhai was 26 years old on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 17 and not 5. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 615/98 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.79,130/-(income p.a.) + 31,652/- (40% prospective income as the deceased was self employed-businessman) - Rs.36,927/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.73,855/- X 17 (multiplier) = Rs.12,55,535/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.12,55,535/- Filial consortium (mother) Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.13,25,535/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,78,767/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.10,46,768/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (3) First Appeal No. 3268 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 616 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (3) First Appeal No. 3268 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 616 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. The deceased Mayurbhai Mohanbhai Shah was running business of manufacturing and exporting of bangle pipes in the name and style of Mayur Plast. Mohanlal Padamsi Shah was examined at exhibit 49 and the claimants have relied upon the income tax returns at exhibit 176 which relates to assessment years 1995-996, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 respectively. The Tribunal has correctly based the income of the deceased on such evidence and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.1,10,984/- p.a. However, no prospective income was granted. As the deceased was self-employed-businessman, the claimants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the parents and brother, however, the brother is not dependent. Therefore, the parents of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as filial consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). However, we find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 11. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Mayurbhai was 25 years old on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18 and not 11. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No.616/98 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.1,10,984/-(income p.a.) + 44,394/- (40% prospective income as the deceased was self employed-businessman) - Rs.51,792/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.1,03,586/- X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.18,64,548/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.18,64,548/- Filial consortium (parents, Rs.40,000 X 2) Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.19,74,548/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,28,883/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.11,45,665/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (4) First Appeal No. 3269 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 617 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. The deceased Hareshbhai Jhaverbhai was running business of manufacturing and exporting of bangle pipes in the name and style of Khushali Brass Industries. Ashokbhai Jhaverbhai Shah was examined at exhibit 52 and the claimants have relied upon the details of income tax at exhibit 177 which relates to assessment years 1995-1996, 1996-1997. The Tribunal has correctly based the income of the deceased on such evidence and determined the income of the deceased at Rs.53,584/- p.a. However, no prospective income was granted. As the deceased was self-employed-businessman, the claimants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the mother and brother, however, the brother is not dependent. Therefore, the mother of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- as filial consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). However, we find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 8. However, we find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 8. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Hareshbhai was 24 years old on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18 and not 8. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 617/98 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.53,584/-(income p.a.) + 21,434/- (40% prospective income as the deceased was self employed-businessman) - Rs.25,006/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.50,012/- X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.9,00,216/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.9,00,216/- Filial consortium (mother) Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,70,216/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,782/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.6,69,434/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (5) First Appeal No. 3270 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 618 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Mohanlal Padamsi Shah was examined at exhibit 50. The Tribunal considered the income of the dceased Rekhaben at Rs.24,000/- p.a., i.e., Rs.2,000/- p.m. However, considering the fact that deceased Rekhaben Mayurbhai Shah was house wife and there is also evidence to show that she was engaged in tuition classes, the notional income of the deceased can be determined at Rs.36,000/- p.a., i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimants would also be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, however, claim qua brother-in-law is dismissed. The claimants would also be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, however, claim qua brother-in-law is dismissed. Therefore, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as filial consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). We find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 11. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Rekhaben was 22 years on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18 and not 11. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 618/98 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.36,000/-(income p.a.) + 14,400/- (40% prospective income) - Rs.16,800/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.33,600/- X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.6,04,800/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/- Filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 2) Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.7,14,800/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,91,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.5,23,800/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (6) First Appeal No. 3271 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 619 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. Chandanbhai Nemchand Galaiya was examined at exhibit 41. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased Varshaben @ Vandanaben Kamleshbhai at Rs.24,000/- p.a., i.e., Rs.2,000/- p.m. However, considering the fact that deceased Varshaben was house wife, the notional income of the deceased can be determined at Rs.36,000/- p.a., i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. Chandanbhai Nemchand Galaiya was examined at exhibit 41. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased Varshaben @ Vandanaben Kamleshbhai at Rs.24,000/- p.a., i.e., Rs.2,000/- p.m. However, considering the fact that deceased Varshaben was house wife, the notional income of the deceased can be determined at Rs.36,000/- p.a., i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimants would also be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, however, claim qua brother-in-law is dismissed. Therefore, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as filial consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). We find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 11. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Varshaben was 23 years on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18 and not 11. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 619/98 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.36,000/-(income p.a.) + 14,400/- (40% prospective income) - Rs.16,800/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.33,600/- X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.6,04,800/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/- Filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 2) Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.7,14,800/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,91,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.5,23,800/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (7) First Appeal No. 3272 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 624 of 1998 wherein the claimant is the father of minor girl child aged 8 months. Upon re-appreciation of the oral evidence of the claimant Bharatbhai, at exhibit 47, and the evidence in form of inquest panchnama at exhibit 144, it is an admitted position that minor Dhara died because of the accident. The Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.a. and has not granted any prospective income and has applied multiplier based upon the age of the claimant, father Bharatbhai and has granted Rs.10,000/- towards shock and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 256 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paras 12, 13 and 16 as under - "12. The second deceased was a school going child aged about 12 years. She had a whole future to look forward in life with all normal human aspirations. She died prematurely due to the accident at a very tender age for no fault of hers even before she could start to understand the beauty and joys of life with all its ups and downs. The loss of a human life untimely at childhood can never be measured in terms of loss of earning or monetary loss alone. The emotional attachments involved to the loss of the child can have a devastating effect on the family which needs to be visualised and understood. Grant of nonpecuniary damages for the wrong done by awarding compensation for loss of expectation in life is therefore called for. Undoubtedly the injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of the child is very difficult to quantify. The future also abounds with uncertainties. Therefore, the courts have used the expression just compensation to get over the difficulties in quantifying the figure to ensure consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation. Undoubtedly the injury inflicted by deprivation of the life of the child is very difficult to quantify. The future also abounds with uncertainties. Therefore, the courts have used the expression just compensation to get over the difficulties in quantifying the figure to ensure consistency and uniformity in awarding compensation. This determination shall not depend upon financial position of the victim or the claimant but rather on the capacity and ability of the deceased to provide happiness in life to the claimants had she remained alive. The compensation is for loss of prospective happiness which the claimant would have enjoyed had the child not died at the tender age. Since the child was studying in a school and opportunities in life would undoubtedly abound for her as the years would have rolled by, compensation must also be granted with regard to future prospects. It can safely be presumed that education would have only led to her better growth and maturity with better prospects and a bright future for which compensation needs to be granted under non-pecuniary damages. (See R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1 ). 13. The income of the minor girl child is incapable of precise fixation. We find no reason to interfere with the assessed notional income of the second deceased. In R.K. Malik vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1 , considering grant of future prospects for the deceased child aged about 10 years it was observed as follows: 32. A forceful submission has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant claimants that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the courts below. 33. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in such submission that the courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while granting compensation. It is well-settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. 16. Kajal (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. It is well-settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, compensation must also be granted with regard to the future prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. 16. Kajal (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. The victim of the accident was a nine month old child, whose disability certificate reflected that she would grow up to be an adult lying on the bed with all the physical and biological attributes of a woman on attaining adulthood, but her mind would remain of a nine month old child because of the accident. The case is completely distinguishable on its own facts and did not arise out of a death claim, leading to award of compensation towards expenses for frequent treatment, hospitalization, transportation, loss of future earnings, attendant charges, pain, suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and future medical treatment etc." Similar view is recently expressed in the case of Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali Vs. Shyam Kishor Murmu & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6902 of 2021. In the case on hand also, the deceased minor was just 8 months old and following the judgment of the Rajendra Singh (supra) and Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali (supra), the notional income of the deceased deserves to be determined at Rs. 25,000/- p.a. and the multiplier applicable would be that of 15. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra), the father would be entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimant of MACP No.624 of 1998 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.25,000/-(income p.a.) X 15 (multiplier) = Rs.3,75,000/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.3,75,000/- Filial consortium (father) Rs.40,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.4,30,000/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,65,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,65,000/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (8) First Appeal No. 3273 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 625 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/-. Somchand Raichand Shah was examined at exhibit 42. (8) First Appeal No. 3273 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 625 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/-. Somchand Raichand Shah was examined at exhibit 42. The deceased was engaged in the business of Powerloom at Mumbai. The documents relating to income tax was produced at exhibit 178 for the years 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998. Based on such evidence, the income of the deceased Shilpaben Dipakkumar has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.40,666/- p.a. However, no prospective income was granted. As the deceased was self-employed, the claimants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, they would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as filial consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). However, we find that while considering the multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 13. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Shilpaben was 22 years old on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18 and not 13. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/2 deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as husband died in the same accident. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 625/98 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.40,666/-(income p.a.) + 16,266/- (40% prospective income as the deceased was self employed)= Rs.56,932/- - Rs.28,466/- (1/2 deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.28,466/- X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.5,12,388/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.5,12,388/- Filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 2) Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.6,22,388/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,67,439/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,54,949/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (9) First Appeal No. 3274 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 626 of 1998 wherein the original claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/-. Somchand Raichand Shah was examined at exhibit 43. The deceased was engaged in the business of sale of electronic items. The documents relating to income tax was produced at exhibit 179 for the years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. Based on such evidence, the average income of the deceased Dipakkumar has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.51,438/- p.a. However, no prospective income was granted. As the deceased was self-employed, the claimants would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by the father and mother of the deceased. Therefore, they would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as filial consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). However, as far as multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant and has applied multiplier of 13. In the claim petition, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased Dipakkumar was 26 years old on the date of the accident and hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be that of 17 and not 13. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3 deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3 deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 626/98 would be entitled to compensation as under – Rs.51,438/-(income p.a.) + 20,575/- (40% prospective income as the deceased was self employed)= Rs.72,013/- - Rs.24,004/- (1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.48,009/- X 17 (multiplier) = Rs.8,16,153/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.8,16,153/- Filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- X 2) Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.9,26,153/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,60,796/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.4,65,357/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (10) First Appeal No. 3275 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 627 of 1998 wherein the original claimant has claimed compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/-. Bharatbhai Veljibhai Shah was examined at exhibit 48. The deceased was engaged in the work of cloth designing and painting. The details of income tax was produced at exhibit 180 for the years 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1997-1998. Based on such evidence, the average income of the deceased Nemitaben has been correctly assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.36,480/- p.a. However, no prospective income was granted. As the deceased was self-employed, the claimant would be entitled to increase in income by way of prospective income to the extent of 40%. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the claim petition was preferred by her husband. Therefore, he would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as consortium as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Somwati (supra). However, we find that the multiplier of 18 assessed by the Tribunal is correct considering the age of the deceased to be 22 years on the date of the accident. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses. However, we find that the multiplier of 18 assessed by the Tribunal is correct considering the age of the deceased to be 22 years on the date of the accident. As far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, 1/3rd deserves to be deducted towards personal expenses. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the claimants of MACP No. 627/98 would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.36,480/-(income p.a.) + 14,592/- (40% prospective income as the deceased was self employed) = Rs.51,072/- - Rs.17,024/- (1/3 deduction towards personal expenses) = Rs.34,048/- X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.6,12,864/- (Loss of dependency) Loss of dependency Rs.6,12,864/- Consortium Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total compensation Rs.6,82,864/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,52,760/-, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.2,30,104/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (11) First Appeal No. 3276 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 742 of 1998 wherein the injured claimant has claimed compensation of Rs.10,50,000/-. The claimant Bharatbhai Veljibhai Shah was examined at exhibit 46. As far as disability is concerned, the agreed disability was to the tune of 24% of the body as a whole. Further, endorsement is made in the purshis at exhibit 80. Hence, the extent of permanent disability of the body as a whole does not require any modification. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record and considering the income tax returns at exhibit 181 for the assessment years 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, the Tribunal has rightly taken average income of these three years and has correctly determined the income to be Rs.39,110/- p.a. Further, considering the degree of the disability and the fact that the injured claimant has continued his activities of life, including business, we deem it fit not to grant any prospective income. We also find that the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 18, however, as the age of the claimant is 28 years, the appropriate multiplier would be that of 17. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. We also find that the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 18, however, as the age of the claimant is 28 years, the appropriate multiplier would be that of 17. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. Upon re-appreciation of the medical evidence on record, more particularly exhibits 111C, 157 and 161, and certificates at exhibit 158C and 160, the injured claimant had to undergo operation and had to take extensive medical treatment for which the Tribunal itself has granted Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and hence, the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, upon re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole, the amount of compensation granted under the head of Attendant, Transportation and Special Diet deserves to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as the injured claimants had to take extensive treatment at different hospitals. The injured claimant at tender age of 28 years, is not only suffering permanent disability of the body as a whole to the tune of 24%, but has lost his kith and kin and would be therefore entitled to compensation under the head of loss of amenities, which in facts of this case and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we deem it fit to quantify at Rs. 50,000/-. The compensation under the head of actual loss of income quantified at Rs. 19,560/- does not require any modification. The Tribunal has, based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence on record and upon re-appreciation of such evidence of medical bills, which are on record, has rightly granted Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in form of reimbursement of medical bills. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellant-injured claimant would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.9,384/- (income p.a.-24% disability) X 17 (multiplier) = Rs.1,59,528/- (Future loss of income) Future loss of income Rs.1,59,528/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.75,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.19,560/- Attendant, transportation and Sp. diet Rs.25,000/- Medical bills Rs.3,00,000/- Total compensation Rs.6,29,088/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,48,472/-, the claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.80,616/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. diet Rs.25,000/- Medical bills Rs.3,00,000/- Total compensation Rs.6,29,088/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,48,472/-, the claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.80,616/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (12) First Appeal No. 3277 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 814 of 1998 wherein the injured claimant has claimed compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The claimant Shital Prakashbhai was examined at exhibit 45. As far as disability is concerned, the agreed disability was to the tune of 30% of the body as a whole. Further, endorsement is made in the purshis at exhibit 78. Hence, the extent of permanent disability of the body as a whole does not require any modification. The Tribunal, on the basis of the certificate of Pithadia Sewing Classes at exhibit 165, considering the injured claimant to be housewife, determined the income at Rs.2,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.24,000/- p.a., which we deem it fit to notionally fix at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., i.e., Rs.36,000/- p.m. Further, considering the degree of the disability and the fact that the injured claimant has continued her activities of life, we deem it fit not to grant any prospective income. We also find that the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 17, however, as the age of the claimant is 22 years, the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. Upon re-appreciation of the medical evidence on record, more particularly exhibit 122C, the injured claimant had to undergo operation and had to take extensive medical treatment for which the Tribunal itself has granted Rs.2,49,902/- towards medical expenses and hence, the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, upon re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole, the amount of compensation granted under the head of Attendant, Transportation and Special Diet deserves to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as the injured claimants had to take extensive treatment at different hospitals. 75,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, upon re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole, the amount of compensation granted under the head of Attendant, Transportation and Special Diet deserves to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as the injured claimants had to take extensive treatment at different hospitals. The injured claimant at tender age of 22 years, is not only suffering permanent disability of the body as a whole to the tune of 30%, but has lost his kith and kin and would be therefore entitled to compensation under the head of loss of amenities, which in facts of this case and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we deem it fit to quantify at Rs. 50,000/-. The compensation under the head of actual loss of income quantified at Rs. 12,000/- does not require any modification. The Tribunal has, based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence on record and upon re-appreciation of such evidence of medical bills, which are on record, has rightly granted Rs.2,49,902 as compensation in form of reimbursement of medical bills. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellant-injured claimant would be entitled to compensation as under - Rs.10,800/- (income p.a.-30% disability) X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.1,94,400/- (Future loss of income) Future loss of income Rs.1,94,400/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.75,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.12,000/- Attendant, transportation and Sp. diet Rs.25,000/- Medical bills Rs.2,49,902/- Total compensation Rs.6,06,302/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,44,302/-, the claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,62,000/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. (13) First Appeal No. 3278 of 2010 This appeal arises out of judgement and award passed in MACP No. 957 of 1998 wherein the injured claimant has claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The claimant Prakashbhai was examined at exhibit 44. The injured claimant was working as Junior Clerk in Jamnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank. The Tribunal, on the basis of the documents at exhibit 35/141, has rightly determined the income of the injured claimant at Rs.3,035/- which does not require to be modified. Further, considering the degree of the disability and the fact that the injured claimant has continued her activities of life, we deem it fit not to grant any prospective income. The Tribunal, on the basis of the documents at exhibit 35/141, has rightly determined the income of the injured claimant at Rs.3,035/- which does not require to be modified. Further, considering the degree of the disability and the fact that the injured claimant has continued her activities of life, we deem it fit not to grant any prospective income. As far as disability is concerned, the agreed disability was to the tune of 20% of the body as a whole. Further, endorsement is made in the purshis at exhibit 79. Hence, the extent of permanent disability of the body as a whole does not require any modification. An attempt was made by Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the insurance company to contend that because of the disability of 20%, acquired by the injured claimant because of the injuries sustained in the accident, has not lost his earning capacity. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 , it was contended that the injured claimant would not be entitled to any amount under the head of future loss of income. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence of the claimant and even in the cross-examination of the said witness, it has come on record that he lost the job because of the injuries sustained and not because the bank was closed. It has also come on evidence, which is not controverted by the insurance company that because of the accident, he has suffered 20% permanent disability of the body as a whole and has remained bedridden for a long period and lost the job. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) would not be applicable to the case on hand and hence, the contention raised by Mr. Shelat that the claimant would not be entitled to any amount under the head of Future Loss of Income deserves to be negatived. We also find that the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 17, however, as the age of the claimant is 25 years, the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. We also find that the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 17, however, as the age of the claimant is 25 years, the appropriate multiplier would be that of 18. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. Upon re-appreciation of the medical evidence on record, more particularly exhibit 105C, the injured claimant had to undergo operation and had to take extensive medical treatment for which the Tribunal itself has granted Rs.2,54,212/- towards medical expenses and hence, the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, upon re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole, the amount of compensation granted under the head of Attendant, Transportation and Special Diet deserves to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as the injured claimants had to take extensive treatment at different hospitals. The injured claimant at tender age of 25 years, has to suffer permanent disability of the body as a whole to the tune of 20%, and therefore would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of amenities, which in facts of this case and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we deem it fit to quantify at Rs. 50,000/-. The compensation under the head of actual loss of income quantified at Rs. 57,575/- does not require any modification. The Tribunal has, based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence on record and upon re-appreciation of such evidence of medical bills, which are on record, has rightly granted Rs.2,54,212/- as compensation in form of reimbursement of medical bills. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellant-injured claimant would be entitled to compensation as under – Rs.7,284/- p.a.(income p.a.-20% disability) X 18 (multiplier) = Rs.1,31,112/- (Future loss of income) Future loss of income Rs.1,31,112/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs.75,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.57,575/- Attendant, transportation and Sp. diet Rs.25,000/- Medical bills Rs.2,54,212/- Total compensation Rs.5,92,899/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,95,615/-, the claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.97,284/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 11. diet Rs.25,000/- Medical bills Rs.2,54,212/- Total compensation Rs.5,92,899/- As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,95,615/-, the claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.97,284/-. However, such additional amount would bear interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 11. Negligence and Liability (1) Dealing with MACP No. 614/98 and relying upon the deposition of Shri Chetanbhai Nemchandbhai Galaiya at exhibit 40, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident occurred only because of the sole negligence of the driver of the truck. However, on later part of the judgment, in paragraph No. 199, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of both the vehicles, i.e., truck bearing registration No.GJ-03-T-3428 and Matador bearing registration no.GJ-10-T-1836 are equally negligent in the ratio of 50:50. In order to examine the issue as to how the accident occurred and who is negligent, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of three eye witness, who were travelling in the Matador as well as the driver of the truck, who was examined at exhibit 87C, who has deposed before the Tribunal that the criminal complaint has been filed against the driver and the criminal case is pending. (2) The FIR, which is at exhibit 86C, was registered on 14.03.1998 at 19.25 Hrs. at Gondal Taluka Police Station being I-CR No. 0083/98. In the FIR it is mentioned that the accident had occurred on Virpur Porbandar National Road near Gomta Siyaram Pump between the truck and matador. It further mentions that in all 6 males, 4 females, one small child who were travelling in the Matador had died due to the said accident and their dead body was taken to the Government Hospital at Gondal and kept in Post mortem room. Other passengers of the Matador, viz., Prakash Shashikant, Bharat Veljibhai, Shital Shantilal, were taken to Rajkot for further treatment. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the driver of the truck had caused the accident by driving the truck in excessive speed because of which 11 persons have died and the remaining witness have sustained injuries. The FIR mentions that against the driver of the truck police complaint is filed under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under section 177, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The FIR mentions that against the driver of the truck police complaint is filed under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and under section 177, 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (3) In the panchnama at exhibit 87C, it was mentioned that the the panchnama of the place of the incident was carried out on 15.03.98 in presence of the panchas. Witness Salimbhai Sadruddinbhai Khoja was present. The place of the incident was Gondal Virpur Porbandar National Highway, which is 14 kms away from Gondal. On the left side of the road towards Virpur from Gondal, one green coloured Matador is lying, which is damaged from the front side due to the accident and the seats are also broken due to the accident. The blood is found on the seat and footwear that are lying scattered in the matador and the number plate with GJ-10T-1836 is seen on the back side of the Matador. It is mentioned in the panchnama that the people travelling in the matador had died on the spot of the accident. It is further mentioned that a truck is lying on the right side of the road going towards Gondal from Virpur, which is of light orange colour. The truck is damaged on front side due to the accident. The Truck number is mentioned as GJ-3T-3428 and wheat was loaded in the truck. It is mentioned that due to the damage on the front side of the truck, there is damage to the engine and radiator of the truck and engine oil has spilled on the road. Wheat is seen on the road as the wheat bags loaded on the truck had broken in the accident. (4) Upon re-appreciation of the aforesaid evidence therefore, which leads to the fact that there was a head on collision, which took place at 7.00 PM on on Gondal Virpur National Highway No.8. The time when the accident occurred was that of dusk and therefore, it is not the case of anybody that there was darkness or the visibility was difficult. Considering the manner in which the accident has occurred and it being head on collision on national highway, would mean that either of the vehicle, i.e., the truck or the Matador tried to overtake and change the side of the road. Considering the manner in which the accident has occurred and it being head on collision on national highway, would mean that either of the vehicle, i.e., the truck or the Matador tried to overtake and change the side of the road. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence as a whole and more particularly, the deposition of eye witness to the accident, FIR at exhibit 86C and panchnama at exhibit 87C, would go to show that the truck not only was a heavy vehicle and matador being small vehicle in comparison to the truck, the truck was loaded with bags of wheat and weight of the goods is also required to be considered. However, in juxtaposition, considering the damage caused to the matador, whereby the front portion of the matador was almost crushed and pushed back, which also indicates at the same time that the Matador also was being drive at considerable speed and impact of head on collision has resulted into the accident and damaged caused to the matador. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence of both the vehicles. However, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record and more particularly, considering the manner in which the accident has occurred and the damage caused to the vehicles involved in the accident and so also the fact that the truck being a huge vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that though both the drivers are negligent, the driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 80% whereas the driver of the Matador was negligent to the extent of 20%. This brings us to the contention raised by Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing for New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company of the truck to the effect that the driver of the truck did not possess a valid and subsisting license to drive heavy goods vehicle. The letter at exhibit 98C addressed by Mahesh B. Vaghela, the surveyor and who has not been examined by the insurance company indicates that the driver of the truck Vashrambhai Nathubhai Chavda had license No. 4/BN/95/44590 which was issued on 12.01.1995 for driving LMV(NT) and HMV endorsement was made on 23.04.1998. The certificate issued by the Assistant RTO, Ahmedabad also recites the same. The certificate issued by the Assistant RTO, Ahmedabad also recites the same. Thus, it is not the case that the driver of the truck did not possess any license. Even considering the ratio laid down in the judgment relied upon by Mr. Majmudar and considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant-insurance company, i.e., New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company of the truck should pay the compensation as determined first and then recover from the owner by filing execution. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised by Mr. Shelat that the interest on the amount of compensation be reduced from 9% to 6% deserves to be negatived, however, on the enhanced amount, as determined by this Court, the original claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. 13. The questions raised for determination in this group of appeals are answered accordingly. 14. Conclusion : The appeals filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., insurance company of the Matador, i.e., First Appeal Nos. 2849 of 2009 to 2862 of 2009 are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent qua negligence. First Appeals No. 845/10 with First Appeal Nos.877/10 to 887/10 filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., insurance company of the truck, are dismissed. First Appeal Nos. 3266 to 3278 of 2010 filed by the claimants are partly allowed as under - (1) First Appeal No. 3266 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 10,86,645/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (2) First Appeal No. 3267 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 10,46,765/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. 10,46,765/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (3) First Appeal No. 3268 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 11,45,665/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (4) First Appeal No. 3269 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 6,69,434/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (5) First Appeal No. 3270 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 5,23,800/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (6) First Appeal No. 3271 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 5,23,800/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (7) First Appeal No. 3272 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. 2,65,000/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (8) First Appeal No. 3273 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs.2,54,949/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (9) First Appeal No. 3274 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 4,65,357/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (10) First Appeal No. 3275 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs.2,30,104/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (11) First Appeal No. 3276 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs.80,616/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (12) First Appeal No. 3277 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. (13) First Appeal No. 3278 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. (13) First Appeal No. 3278 of 2010 is partly allowed and the insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of Rs. 97,284/- as awarded by this Court with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this judgment and order in the ratio as decided by this Court. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in each of the claim petition stand modified to the aforesaid extent. All the appeals are disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.