JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original opponent No. 3 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6-original claimants and respondent Nos. 7 & 8-original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (‘The Act’ for short) and Cross objections have been filed by the original claimants against the original opponents against the judgment and award passed by learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Aux) Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 154 of 2008 on 7th August, 2014. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the opponents in their rank as they stood in the original petition for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 That on 3rd November, 2007 at about 09:30 hours, Dharmendrasinh Shiromanisinh Bhadoriya was going on his bicycle towards his place of work and while he was passing near Gyaspur on Narol Sarkhej Road, the opponent No. 1 came driving Tractor bearing No. GJ-9-AF-1685, which belonged to the opponent No. 2 and was insured with the opponent No. 3, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tractor at the rear side of the bicycle of Dharmendrasinh Shiromanisinh Bhadoriya, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained serious injuries and was taken to LG Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment and he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The offence was registered at Vatwa Police Station being I-C.R. No. 545 of 2007. 2.2 The claimants, who are the widow, minor children and parents of deceased Dharmendrasinh Shiromanisinh Bhadoriya have filed the claim petition mainly stating that the deceased was 28 years on the date of the accident and was hale and hearty and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as a Garment Operator in R.V. Denim Export Limited. The claimants have lost their sole bread-earner and have claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation jointly and severally from all the opponents under all available heads. 3. The notices were duly served to the opponents but the opponent Nos. 1 & 2 did not remain present whereas the opponent No. 3 Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement at Exh.13 mainly denying all the allegations and the averments made in the claim petition and urged the learned Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. 3. The notices were duly served to the opponents but the opponent Nos. 1 & 2 did not remain present whereas the opponent No. 3 Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement at Exh.13 mainly denying all the allegations and the averments made in the claim petition and urged the learned Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence of all parties on record, found the opponent No. 1-driver of the Tractor, who dashed the cycle from behind, 80% negligent and the deceased 20% negligent for the occurrence of the accident and considering the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2500/- per month, as no cogent convincing evidence was produced, awarded an amount of Rs.14,12,500/- and deducted contributory negligence of 20% and in all awarded an amount of Rs.11,30,000/- with 9% interest jointly and severally from all the opponents to be paid from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellant- Insurance Company has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Tribunal has considered the future prospective income at 50% whereas 30% ought to have been considered and the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- under the conventional heads and hence the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal must be modified accordingly. 6. The claimants in the cross objections have mainly stated that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held the deceased 20% negligent for the occurrence of the accident especially when the Tractor driver dashed the cycle of the deceased from rear side. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has also not awarded the proper amount considering the salary slip produced at Exh.32 and 33 respectively and the learned Tribunal has ignored the income aspect and hence the amount of compensation must be enhanced accordingly. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.J. Shelat appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. H.M. Shah learned advocate for the original claimants. Though served, the other respondents have not appeared. 8. From the records and proceedings of claim petition No. 154 of 2008, it appears that the claimant No. 1 has filed the examination-in-chief at Exh.24. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.J. Shelat appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. H.M. Shah learned advocate for the original claimants. Though served, the other respondents have not appeared. 8. From the records and proceedings of claim petition No. 154 of 2008, it appears that the claimant No. 1 has filed the examination-in-chief at Exh.24. Admittedly, the claimant No. 1 is not an eye-witness to the witness but she has reiterated all contents of the claim petition and has stated that at the time of the accident, her deceased-husband was aged 28 years and was hale and hearty and they have lost their sole earning member and they have suffered a huge lose due to the sudden demise of the sole earning member. During the cross examination, the claimant no. 1 has admitted that she is not an eye witness and whatever was stated in the examination in chief is on the basis of what others have told her. That at the time of the accident she was at home and she was informed that her husband has died in the accident. That she has never visited the work place where her husband had worked. 9. The claimants have produced the complaint at Exh.25, the panchnama of place of offence at Exh.26, inquest panchnama at Exh.27, PM Note of the deceased at Exh.28, the School Leaving Certificate of the deceased at Exh.29 and the birth certificate of the deceased at Exh.30. On perusal of the complaint produced at Exh.25, the complaint states that Tractor No. GJ-9-AF-1685 was on the road and the driver of the said tractor had kept the tractor at the spot of incident and fled away. The complaint has been filed by Parshottambhai Dhulabhai, B. No. 3221, ASI, Vatwa Police Station, Ahmedabad as the information was given from the LG Hospital to Vatwa Police station that the incident has occurred and the injured was taken to Hospital in 108 Ambulance. The panchnama of the place of offence is produced at Exh.26 and it appears that the accident has occurred on the national highway no. 8 on the road from Narol circle to Sarkhej near the board of Gyaspur Village where Tractor No. GJ-9-AF-1685 was lying and bloodstains were found at the place of incident. The panchnama of the place of offence is produced at Exh.26 and it appears that the accident has occurred on the national highway no. 8 on the road from Narol circle to Sarkhej near the board of Gyaspur Village where Tractor No. GJ-9-AF-1685 was lying and bloodstains were found at the place of incident. The place, at which the incident has occurred, is 70 ft wide north-south road with a divider in the middle and the tractor was lying 15 ft away from the divider and the cycle, which was bent was lying in-front of the Tractor. This proves that the incident has occurred in the middle of the road and the deceased, who was riding the Cycle was in the middle of the road and the accident has occurred. That the cyclist ought to have driven the cycle on the extreme left side of the road and even though it is a wide road, it appears that the deceased was riding his cycle in the middle of the road. Admittedly, the driver of the Tractor, who is the best eye-witness to depose about how the incident has occurred, has not been examined before the learned Tribunal and considering the panchnama and the place where the accident has occurred, the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the Tractor 80% and the cyclist at 20% negligent for the occurrence of the accident. 10. Admittedly the place of accident is a wide road and the cyclist was going in front of the Tractor and the opponent No. 1 had ample opportunity to see that the cyclist who was in front of the tractor, moreover, as per the complaint produced at Exh.25, the complainant Parshottambhai Dhulabhai, B. No. 3221, Vatwa Police Station had joined his duty on 3rd November, 2007 at 08:00 hurs and at 11:00 hrs, he was intimated by PSO Vatwa in writing that on the instructions of CMO Dharmendrabhai of the L.G. Hospital, Police Constable Chattrasinh Ghandshyambhai had given information that in MLC Case No. 3672 an unknown person aged approximately 30 years was hit by a vehicle at 09:30 hrs on the Gyaspur Board road and was brought in 108 Ambulance and admitted in the Trauma Ward in L.G. Hospital. This proves that the accident had occurred in the morning at 09:30 am and in broad day light and the opponent No. 1 had full opportunity to see the cyclist riding his bicycle in front of the tractor. Considering that the cyclist was riding his cycle in the middle of the road, the opponent No. 1 ought to have blown the horn and slowed down the Tractor and taken it to the right side of the road as the road was sufficiently wide but it appears that the opponent No. 1 did not blow the horn as the cyclist was riding his bicycle in the middle of the road and hence it would be just and proper if the cyclist is held to be 10% negligent and the driver of the Tractor 90% negligent for the occurrence of the accident. 11. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the deceased was working as a Garment Operator in R.V. Denim Export Ltd. and earning Rs.5,000/- pm. The claimant No. 1, in her deposition, at Exh.24, has also stated the same fact and has categorically stated that the deceased was working in R.V. Denim Export, 188/2 Rani Pur Village, Narol, Ahmedabad as an Operator in the Garment department and was earning Rs.4,950/- pm. The claimants have examined witness Nirvabhai Dilipbhai Raval at Exh.32 and have produced the salary slip of the deceased at Exh.33 and the witness has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6500/- pm. During the course of cross examination, the witness has stated besides the salary slip, he has not produced any documents, to show that the deceased was working in R.V. Denim Export Limited and in the year 2000, at the time of the accident, about 150 employees were working in R.V. Denim Export Ltd. but no statement or salary statement has been produced. The witness has further stated that the deceased was not working, when he joined the company and he has no record about the salary and does not know on what basis, the salary slip has been made. The witness has also not produced any appointment letter or any other document, to show that, the income of the deceased was Rs.6500/- pm, on the date of the accident. The witness has also not produced any appointment letter or any other document, to show that, the income of the deceased was Rs.6500/- pm, on the date of the accident. The learned Tribunal has dealt with this aspect and as no reliance could be placed on the certificate, which was contrary to the deposition of the claimant No. 1 has considered the monthly salary of Rs.5000/- pm, which is just and proper considering the fact that the same amount was pleaded in the claim petition and also in the affidavit of the claimant No. 1 which is produced at Exh.24. The learned Tribunal has considered the prospective income of 50%, as deceased was 28 years on the date of the accident, which is also just and proper and considering the number of dependent, ¼ amount has been deducted as personal expenditure and the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.5625/- p.m. and Rs.67,500/- p.a. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 as the deceased was 28 years on the date of the accident, and hence the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.11,47,500/-. As far as the amounts of consortium and funeral expenses and loss of estate are concerned, the learned Tribunal has not properly awarded the amount as per the judgments of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. 2018 (18) SCC 130 and as the parents of the deceased have expired and the claimants are the widow and three children, the claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as spousal and parental consortium and Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and in all claimants would be entitled to Rs.13,37,500/-. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Cross objections are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and the judgment and award passed by learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Aux) Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 154 of 2008 on 7th August, 2014 is hereby modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs.13,37,500/- as the enhanced amount of compensation, from which, the amount of 10% negligence of the deceased i.e. Rs.1,33,750/- is deducted and in all claimants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.12,03,750/-. 13. 13. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.11,30,000/- and hence the claimants are entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.73,750/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation with 6% interest as early as possible within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. After depositing the additional amount of compensation, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants through NEFT/RTGS, after proper verification. 14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.