ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. At the risk and cost of learned counsel for the appellant, service of notice upon respondent No.1-Driver, is dispensed with. 2. By way of these misc. appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality and validity of the judgment/award dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salumber, district Udaipur (‘learned Tribunal’) in MAC Cases Nos.395/2012, 396/2012 and 397/2012, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded quantum of compensation in favour of the claimants and held non-claimants i.e. Driver, Owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle, liable to pay the said amount jointly and severally. 3. Since these appeals arise out of same controversy as well as the same judgment/award dated 26.11.2015, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order. 4. The relevant background facts of the case are that on 17.01.2012 at about 2.00 PM, Shri Narendra Kumar (deceased husband of the claimant No.1-Chunni Devi in SBCMA No.1178/2016), Shyamlal (appellant/claimant in SBCMA No.2341/2016) and one Shri Logar, after parking motorcycle near Jaisamand Veerpura Badabaag, were standing and talking with each other. A car bearing registration No.RJ-03-TA-0777, driven by one Rajesh Kumar (driver), coming from Salumber in a rash and negligent manner, hit them from behind and as a result whereof, they received grievous injuries. For the treatment, all of them were rushed to Bhupal General Hospital, Udaipur and on 19.01.2012, during the treatment, Shri Narendra Kumar expired and Shyamlal and Logar were grievously injured. 5. An FIR No.12/2012 came to be lodged at the Police Station Sarada, Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. Claim petitions were filed on behalf of the injured persons and the deceased wherein, Rajesh Kumar (driver), Mahipal Singh (owner) and the insurance company were held liable to pay the compensation. 6. Respondent/non-claimants denied the averments contained in the claim petitions and stated that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments of the claim petitions as well as of respondents/non- claimants and submitted that the accident did not take place from the vehicle in question but occurred due to the negligence of Narendra Kumar, Shyamlal and Logar. 8. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed four issues: 9. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments of the claim petitions as well as of respondents/non- claimants and submitted that the accident did not take place from the vehicle in question but occurred due to the negligence of Narendra Kumar, Shyamlal and Logar. 8. As per the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed four issues: 9. Oral as well as documentary evidences were produced by the claimants to prove their case whereas, no oral as well as documentary evidence was led by the non-claimants/respondents. 10. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions filed by the claimants by awarding quantum of compensation in their favour and thus, being dissatisfied from the same, the appellants herein have preferred these misc. appeals. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening contributory negligence only 30% liability upon the claimants, inasmuch as the deceased as well as the injured claimants who suffered injuries on account of the said accident, were standing on the said highway and talking to each other while their own vehicle was parked and was facing towards Udaipur, i.e. the wrong side. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also submits that the road on which the accident took place was State Highway No.53 and that the driver of the offending vehicle had applied brakes well before 8-10 feet from the spot of the accident, as observed in the Naksha-Mauka, pointing towards the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had taken all the steps possible in his capacity to avoid the untoward incident. He also submits that the vehicle which was parked beside the deceased along with the injured-claimants who suffered injuries, was damaged only from the front and there was no damage on the back-side of the vehicle, which adds to the possibility that it was the negligence of the deceased that their vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-27-SE-1509, was parked on the wrong side and they were standing beside the said vehicle on the State Highway, without exercising proper care and caution and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered 50% contributory negligence on part of the deceased as well as the injured claimants, who had been injured during the said accident. 13. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the counsel representing the insurance company and submits that the said accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the Insurance Company and thus, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company warrants rejection. He, thus, urges, that the impugned judgment/ award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and thus, the same need not be reduced. 14. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have carefully gone through the material available on record. 15. The precise question before this Court for adjudication of these appeals is that whether the learned Tribunal was right in attributing 30% deduction towards contributory negligence upon the deceased and injured claimants for causing the accident or not. 16. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has categorically observed that the vehicle carried by the deceased Shri Narendra Kumar along with the injured claimants viz. Shyamlal and Logar, who have suffered injuries, was facing Udaipur, i.e. it was on the wrong side of the road. It is also seen that the learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that the road on which the accident had occurred was a State Highway and thus, it was negligence on part of the deceased and the injured claimants who were standing and talking on middle of the State Highway. Thus, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned Tribunal that indeed it was negligence on account of the deceased and the injured claimants, who stood on the road and that too a State Highway, where it is only plausible that the vehicles would ply at a high speed. 17. Furthermore, upon perusal of the Site-Plan (Exhibit-4), it bears noting that the learned Tribunal has observed that the driver of the offending vehicle had applied brakes well in advance, i.e. 8-10 feet before the site of accident and the marks of the brakes so applied by the driver of the offending vehicle, have been clearly demarcated by the dotted lines, which start much before the site of accident, which is demarcated as ‘A’ in the Site-Plan (Exhibit-4). Thus, a bare perusal of the Site-Plan (Exhibit-4) makes it clear that the driver of the offending vehicle had taken all possible and precautionary steps to prevent the said accident, however, looking into the fact that the road on which the accident had occurred, was a State Highway and that, the vehicles that are being plied on the said road, would reasonably be driven at a higher speed in comparison to the vehicles that are plied in a crowded area and thus, it would be only reasonable that even after applying the brakes, it would not be entirely possible to prevent the accident, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 18. Moreover, upon perusal of the Site-Plan, this Court also finds that the mark ‘A’ which indicates the site of accident and where the deceased along with the respondent-claimants who suffered injuries, were standing, is quite distant from the footpath that is present along side the State Highway. This Court finds that even if the deceased and the injured claimants who suffered injuries, stopped the motorcycle to talk, they could have stood on the footpath, rather than the State Highway to do so, and thus, it was clear lack of caution on part of the deceased along with the injured claimants who suffered injuries, which also contributed to the accident equally. 19. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has also observed that there were no signs of damage to the motorcycle carried by the deceased and the injured claimants and the motorcycle had been damaged only from the front-side, which leads to the conclusion that the motorcycle was parked while pointing towards Udaipur and thus, upon perusal of the Site-Plan (Exhibit-4), it is seen that the said motorcycle was parked on the wrong-side and thus, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased along with the claimants, was also negligent while parking the motorcycle on the wrong-side of the State Highway, and then standing on the State Highway itself to talk, at the time of accident. The Site-Plan (Exhibit-4) is reproduced hereinbelow: 20. The Site-Plan (Exhibit-4) is reproduced hereinbelow: 20. Thus, the question raised before this Court is answered partly affirmative inasmuch as the learned Tribunal was justified and correct in ascertaining the contributory negligence of the deceased and the injured claimant who suffered the injury, however looking into the fact that firstly, the deceased along with the injured claimants who suffered the injuries, were standing on the wrong-side of the State Highway; secondly, the deceased and the injured claimants who suffered injuries, were standing and talking on the road, even when there was a footpath carved along side the State Highway, as seen from the Site-Plan (Exhibit-4); and lastly, the Site-Plan (Exhibit-4) clearly indicates the marks where the driver of the offending vehicle had applied brakes in form of dotted lines, which starts 8-10 feet prior to the site of accident, marked as ‘A’ and therefore, it is seen that the driver of the offending vehicle had exercised due care to prevent the accident but those efforts were not fructified and thus, taking into consideration all these factors in toto, this Court deems it fit to attribute contributory negligence on part of the deceased as well as the injured claimants, Shyamlal and Logar to the extent of 50% instead of 30%, as ascertained by the learned Tribunal. 21. In SBCMA No.2341/2016, learned counsel representing the appellant/claimant-Shyamlal makes a limited submission that the learned Tribunal has erred in law and facts of the case and awarded meager compensation, to which, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company opposes and submits that as per Injury Report of Shyamlal (Exhibit-58), the appellant received only two injuries which were simple in nature and therefore, the learned Tribunal was correct in awarding compensation to the appellant and the same does not requires any interference. 22. From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 26.11.2015, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal after perusing Exhibit-58 (Injury Report of the claimant), arrived at a conclusion that during the accident, the appellant received only two injuries which were simple in nature and thus the contention of the appellant that he received numerous injuries during the accident, holds no force, as there is no document on record which proves this contention of the appellant. Thus, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in awarding quantum of compensation in favour of the appellant. Thus, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in awarding quantum of compensation in favour of the appellant. However, looking into the fact that since no appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the claimant-Shyamlal, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the issue of the contributory negligence in this case. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as the compensation awarded is meagre, the Insurance Company has not preferred appeal against the claimant. 23. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, the misc. appeals being SBCMAs Nos.625/2016 and 527/2016 preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed and resultantly, this Court attributes 50% negligence, upon deceased along with the injured claimants, who suffered injuries on account of the said accident and the misc. appeal preferred by the appellant-Shyamlal being SBCMA No.2341/2016 stands dismissed, as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. 24. Now, coming on to SBCMA No.1178/2016; learned counsel representing the claimants submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants, is on a lower side and also, not a single penny has been awarded towards future prospects and consortium to which, learned counsel representing the insurance company opposes and submits that the instant appeal warrants rejection. 25. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions of learned counsel representing the claimants as the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects towards loss of income incurred by the deceased and thus, the dependents are also entitled to get compensation under the head of consortium in accordance with the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 26. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi : [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104 . 26. Since there is no dispute on the factual matrix of the case and along with the conclusion arrived at by this Court that the award passed by the learned Tribunal warrants enhancement, this Court directs counsel for the parties to jointly submit the calculations in light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the claimants are held entitled for enhancement towards, future prospects and consortium, as explained in a tabular form:- Particulars Amount awarded by Tribunal Amount awarded by the Court Income of the deceased, after applying the multiplier of 16 (4,500 x 12 x 16) Rs. 8,64,000/- Rs. 8,64,000/- Deducting ¼ towards Personal Expenses Rs. 6,48,000/- Rs. 6,48,000/- Adding 40% towards future prospects (6,48,000 + 40% of 6,48,000) [A] Not awarded Rs. 9,07,200/- Consortium (48,400 x 8) [B] Rs. 1,00,000/- (wife) + Rs. 1,00,000/- (collectively to the children) + Rs. [10,000 x3] (10,000 each for the mother and two sisters of the deceased) = Rs. 2,30,000/- Rs. 3,87,200/- Funeral Expenses [C] Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 18,100/- Loss of Estates [D] Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 18,100/- Transport Expenses [E] Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Medical Bills [F] Rs. 45,835/- Rs. 45,835/- GRANDTOTAL [A+B+C+D+E+F] Rs. 9,58,835/- Rs. 13,81,435/- Reducing 50% on account of contributory negligence (50% of 13,81,435) Rs. 6,71,200/-[G] Rs. 6,90,717.5/- [H] Enhanced amount Rs. 19,517.5/- 27. Accordingly, this misc. appeal being SBCMA No.1178/2016 preferred by the claimants is partly allowed. The judgment/award dated 26.11.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 396/2012, is enhanced and modified in the terms as stated above. The claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.19,517.5/- in the terms stated above from the respondent Insurance Company in accordance with the directions of the learned Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of deposit. 28. Any amount, if already paid, shall be adjusted accordingly. Record be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs. 29. A copy of this order be placed in each file.