JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 28.08.2017 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”), Raigarh (C.G.), in Claim Case No.54/2016 awarding a compensation of Rs.7,29,500/- in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Sanjay Jha. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 03.02.2016, deceased Sanjay Jha, who is husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and son of appellant No.5, was going to Kharsiya after loading kerosene oil from Vishrampur Depot in Tanker bearing registration No.CG-10-JB-1022. On the way to Kharsiya, one truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JD-9715 driven by respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the vehicle (Tanker) of deceased Sanjay Jha as a result of which, deceased was seriously burnt after the tanker caught fire in the accident. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay Jha was taken to JLNHRC Hospital, Bhilai, where he succumbed to the burn injuries on 04.02.2016. A claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants, who happen to be the legal heir of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.53,33,517/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 39 years, he was skilled driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.300/- allowance per day. 3. Pleading of the claimant have, however, been denied by the respondent/insurance company. 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal after holding the deceased accountable for accident, has awarded the compensation of Rs.7,29,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the appellant/claimants taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month and Rs.1,08,000/- per annum, applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 5. Counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding adequate compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have remained ex-parte and the respondent No.3 has not produced any evidence to establish the finding of contributory negligence but the finding has been recorded in para 16 and whole of the award amount has been deducted half though the amount of loss of consortium and love and affection cannot be deducted in any case. 1 and 2 have remained ex-parte and the respondent No.3 has not produced any evidence to establish the finding of contributory negligence but the finding has been recorded in para 16 and whole of the award amount has been deducted half though the amount of loss of consortium and love and affection cannot be deducted in any case. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount in other head like love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of future income which may be enhanced suitably. The learned Tribunal has also committed error while passing the award impugned by not taking into consideration the daily allowance Rs.300/-, which the deceased used to get. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 . 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/insurance company supporting the award impugned placed his reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjana Prakash and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in (2011) ACJ 2418 and Buoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 242 . 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. The learned Tribunal, in para 16, recorded the finding that the deceased was also held responsible for the accident and deducted half of the awarded compensation, but the non-applicant/ respondent No.1 herein (driver) did not appear before the learned Tribunal. That apart, non-applicant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company also did not examine any witness in its favour. Even non-applicant/respondent No.3 did not plead about the contributory negligence of the deceased in their reply, as such, without any pleading and without any evidence to that effect, the learned Tribunal only on assumption recorded the finding that the deceased was also responsible for the accident. This finding of the learned Tribunal, considering the material and evidence on record, is not based on proper appreciation of material on record. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jiju (supra) held in para 20.5 as under :- “20.5 The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jiju (supra) held in para 20.5 as under :- “20.5 The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. 10. This, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jiju (supra) and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, material on record, the various factors of accident, the finding with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is not sustainable and the same is set aside. 11. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 12. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.7,29,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 13. From the pleadings of the respective parties and the overall evidence on record it is clear that the accident occurred with the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent No.3 and was being driven by respondent No.1. Evidence further goes to show that offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. The appellants/claimants have filed a certificate (Ex.P/86) of employer of the deceased where he was working as Driver showing his salary Rs.10,000/-, which was duly signed by authorised signatory. Evidence further goes to show that offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. The appellants/claimants have filed a certificate (Ex.P/86) of employer of the deceased where he was working as Driver showing his salary Rs.10,000/-, which was duly signed by authorised signatory. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence of Rajesh Kumar Goenka (AW/2), Transporter, who stated that he was giving Rs.10,000/- per month as salary to the deceased including Rs.300/- per day as allowance in the event of going out of station with the tanker, and in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kala Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das Chouhan & Ors. reported in 2014-4 TAC 673 SC, accessed the monthly salary of deceased as Rs.9,000/-. Thus, this establishes that the total monthly earning 'including allowance' of the deceased was Rs.9,000/-. The accident took place in the year 2016 and this Court does not find any fault in calculating the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-. Annual income of the deceased thus comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. 14. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.9,000/- which makes the annual income as Rs.1,08,000/-. The deceased was married and 39 years of old at the time of accident and he was getting fixed salary. Thus, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , future prospects at 40% of the actual income of the deceased is required to be taken, thus, the amount comes to Rs.43,200,/- (40% of 1,08,000/-). Further, after deducting 1/4 towards the standard deduction on the deceased himself, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,13,625- [Rs.37,875 1/4th of (1,08,000/- + 43,500/- = 1,51,500/-)] which by applying the multiplier of 15 rises to Rs.17,04,375/- as the total loss of dependency which the deceased must have spent on the dependents. The Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly awarded Rs.1,24,000/-under the head medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- for transportation. The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘loss of love and affection & loss of consortium, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 , is just and proper. The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘loss of love and affection & loss of consortium, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 , is just and proper. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head Funeral Expenses, which in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) is inadequate. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head Loss of Estate’. The Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. Thus, keeping in view all these things, above discussion and in view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. The claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court Income 1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000/- per month x 12) Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000/- per month x 12) Future Prospect Nil Rs.43,200/- (40% of 1,08,000/- Deduction towards living and personal expenses Rs. 27,000 (1/4th of 1,08,000) Rs. 37,800/- (1/4th of 1,08,000 + 43,200/- = Rs.1,51,200/-) Total Income Rs.81,000/- Rs.1,13,400/- Multiplier applied 15 15 Loss of Future Income Rs.12,15,000(Rs.81,000 x 15) Rs.17,01,000/- (Rs.1,13,400 x 15) Medical Expenses Rs.1,24,000/- Rs.1,24,000/- Towards Love and Affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- For Funeral Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Nil Rs.15,000/- Transportation Rs.10,000 Rs.10,000/- Total Compensation awarded Rs. 7,29,500/- out of Rs.14,59,000/- holding the deceased equally accountable for the accident. Rs.19,65,000/- 15. Thus, the total compensation including the amount awarded on conventional heads comes to Rs.19,65,000 i.e. (17,01,000 + 2,64,000/-) for which the claimants are entitled to receive as compensation, is just and proper, for the death of deceased Sanjay Jha. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.7,29,500/-, after deducting the same the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.12,35,500/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. 16. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.7,29,500/-, after deducting the same the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.12,35,500/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The amount received by the claimants, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. 16. Appeal is thus allowed in part with the modification in the award impugned as indicated above.