JUDGMENT : The present Appeal is preferred by the appellants who are original claimants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 582 of 2005 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) Mehsana dated 2.1.2007 by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,46,500/- with 9 % interest per annum from the date of claim petition. 1.1 Brief facts of the present case are as under : 2. That the Honourable Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux), 4th Fast Track Court at Mehsana by his judgment and order dated 2.1.2007 was pleased to partly allow the claim of the appellants. It is the case of the claimants that on 30.7.2005 the deceased Dineshkumar Gangaprasad Jagrid Mistry was going on his motor cycle from Mehsana to Modhara Cross road and when he was driving on his motor cycle on Mehsana Ahmedabad road on the left hand side on tanker driven by the opponent no.1 came from the backside and dashed with the Motor cycle of the deceased and therefore, the deceased Dineshbhai who was aged 22 years at the time of accident he received serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. At that relevant point of time he was earning his income by doing the work of Carpenter. Therefore, the claimants who are the parents of the deceased have filed their claim petition for compensation from the opponents. 3. The Tribunal has issued notice to the opponents and opponent no.1 and opponent no. 2 though served have not remained present before the Tribunal. Opponent no.3 the Insurance Company of the tanker has appeared and filed the written statement at Exh. 40 by disputing the contents of the claim petition. Respondent no. 4, the owner of the Motor cycle has also appeared through advocate and respondent no. 5 the Insurance Company of the Motor Cycle has appeared through the lawyer has filed the written statement at Exh. 18 and thereafter the Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh. 22 for determination of the claim petition and after recording the evidence more particularly the deposition of the claimants at Exh. 27 who was also cross-examined by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company and after considering the various documentary evidence like FIR at Exh. 30, panchanama at Exh. 21, Insurance policy at Exh. 30 etc. 22 for determination of the claim petition and after recording the evidence more particularly the deposition of the claimants at Exh. 27 who was also cross-examined by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company and after considering the various documentary evidence like FIR at Exh. 30, panchanama at Exh. 21, Insurance policy at Exh. 30 etc. The Tribunal has proceeded further and after hearing the arguments of the respective parties has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs 3,46,500/- with 9% interest by holding the deceased 10% negligent and 90% negligence of the tanker. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the insufficiency of the amount awarded by the Tribunal the claimant has filed the present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act for enhancement. 4. Learned advocate for the appellants original claimant Mr. Yogendra Thakore has submitted that Tribunal has committed gross error in not awarding sufficient compensation under the different head. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs 4000/ which is correctly considered and thereafter adding 40% towards the prospective income in view of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16SCC 680 and deducting 1/2 of that amount, the amount will remain Rs 2,800/- which for the yearly dependency will come to Rs 33,600/- and looking to the age of deceased the multiplier which is given by the Tribunal is 15 which is erroneous which is requried to be awarded 18 in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi(supra). He has further submitted that therefore the amount of dependency benefit will be more then which is awarded by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any proper and reasonable amount under the head of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi(supra). He has further submitted that therefore the amount of dependency benefit will be more then which is awarded by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any proper and reasonable amount under the head of loss of consortium and funeral expenses. He has further submitted that under the head of loss of estate no amount is awarded and therefore, he has prayed that in view of the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram and Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Rs 80,000/- should be awarded to loss of consortium and Rs 15,000/- for loss estate and Rs 15,000/- for funeral expenses should be awarded in view of the judgment of Magama (supra) as well as Pranay Sethi (supra) and in addition to that he has submitted that Tribunal has wrongly assessed the negligence aspect and attributed 10% negligence to the vehicle of the deceased and looking to the panchnanama and FIR the Tribunal has committed error in attributing 10 % of negligence should be attributed to the tanker as he is solely negligent for causing the accident and therefore, he prays to allow the appeal by considering the submission. 5. Per contra Ms. Lilu Bhaya is appearing for the Insurance Company respondent no. 5 has submitted that the Tribunal has passed just and proper award. Learned advocate Ms. Bhaya has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances appropriate order may be passed. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat respondent no.3 Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal as such not committed any error by considering the aspect of negligence as looking to the panchnama and FIR, Tribunal has rightly discussed this aspect of negligence and as the vehicle of the deceased was found in the left hand side of the wheel of the truck. The Tribunal has rightly considered that the deceased was 10% negligent in causing the accident. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the dependency benefit by deducting 1/3 instead of 1/2 as the claimants are parents. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly added amount of prospective income to the tune of 50% where the deceased was self employed person and propsective income should be added 40%. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the dependency benefit by deducting 1/3 instead of 1/2 as the claimants are parents. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly added amount of prospective income to the tune of 50% where the deceased was self employed person and propsective income should be added 40%. However, he has fairly considered that the multiplier can be enhanced to 15 to 18 and some enhancement towards the loss of consortium and loss of estate and funeral expenses can be awarded. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. I have also perused the Record and proceedings of the Tribunal. I have also perused the memo of the appeal as well as impugned judgment and award. It is found that the Tribunal has considered the aspect of negligence which is well discussed in the reasons by considering the negligence of 10 %. Tribunal has not committed any error more particularly when the vehicle is found on the left handside of the tanker and near rear wheel and therefore, looking to the place of accident and panchnama the Tribunal has not committed any error in attributing 10% negligence to the motorcycle. Therefore, there is no interference regarding the issue of contributory negligence which is assessed by the Tribunal, 10% of the motor cycle and 90% of the tanker however, on the aspect of quantum it seems that some recalculation is required to be carried out as in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram and Ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , some enhancement in the amount awarded by the Tribunal can be granted. His correct submission on the part of the claimant that Rs 4000/- income is considered by the Tribunal is found proper and since in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi the 40% addition in the prospective income can be awarded and since the parents are the claimants, 1/2 is required to be deducted instead of 1/3 and, therefore, that amount will come to Rs 2,800/- , monthly dependency which will come to Rs 33,600/- as annual dependency. However, Tribunal has committed error in awarding 15 multiplier looking to the age of deceased was 21 to 22 years at the time of the accident, therefore, 18 multiplier can be awarded and therefore, Rs 33,600/- multiplied by 18 will come to Rs 6,04,800/- this amount can be considered as a loss of dependency benefit. In addition to that under the loss of head of consortium the parents are the claimants are entitled to get the amount towards consortium and therefore, Rs 80,000/-(Rs 40,000/-) each is awarded towards loss of consortium. In view of the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company (supra) and in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra) under the loss of estate Rs 15,000/- and under the head of funeral expenses Rs 15,000/- is required to be awarded and thus, the total amount would come to Rs 7,14,800/- since the deceased was driving the motorcycle and held negligent to 10% and therefore, 10% contribution to the accident is required to be deducted and therefore, Rs 71,480/- is required to be deducted from Rs 7,14,800/- and thus, the amount would come to Rs 6,43,320/- which is the amount recalculated in the present appeal and is awardable to the claimant. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs 3,46,500/- by way of impugned judgment and award and therefore, there is enhancement of Rs 2,96,820/- in the awarded amount by allowing this appeal and thus the present appeal is allowed by enhancing the amount of Rs 2,96,820/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs 2,96,820/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order before the concerned Tribunal and the concerned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimant by following due procedure and by account payee cheque. The record and proceedings lying before this Court shall be send forthwith to the concerned Tribunal. Appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.