JUDGMENT : 1. The claimants, widow and minor as heirs deceased have challenged the judgment dated 27.06.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.210/2015 disputing the compensation granted. 2. Mr. Paresh M.Darji, learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the deceased was serving as Manager in Bharat Platochem Co. at Halol, and receiving Rs.11,000/- per month, but since the income could not be proved by examining the proprietor, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of Rs.5,000/- only, and has granted 30% rise for future prospect, and has relied on the P.M. Note to consider the age. Mr. Darji submitted that according to driving license, the date of birth of the deceased is 11.06.1975, and, thus contended that his age, at the time of death, would be 35 years, hence, as per judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% prospective rise is required to be assessed. 3. While countering the argument, Advocate Mr. V.C. Thomas submitted that to pray for the income, as pleaded, necessary cogent evidence is required, and when the person working was under the proprietorship, the officer of the Company is required to be examined, or an accountant to prove the salary, and when no such exercise has been undertaken, Mr. Thomas submitted that the assessment of Rs.5,000/- income is just and proper. 4. The case of vehicular accident, as was noted by the Tribunal suggests that on 14.07.2014, the deceased was driving his motorcycle and was going from Halol to Vadodara, and when he reached the place of accident at the periphery of village Lilora, Taluka: Halol on Halol Vadodara Road, a truck bearing registration No.HR-45-A-1871, came from rear side, in excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner endangering human life, and while overtaking another vehicle, the Truck driver lost control on the Truck, and dashed with the motorcycle. 5. The Tribunal on examining the evidence on record with inquest panchnama and P.M. Note had observed 90% negligence of the truck driver and 10% of the deceased, since the deceased had not worn the headgear at the time of accident. 6. Advocate Mr. Darji submitted that facts of the case suggests that Truck had dashed the motorcycle from rear side. The Truck driver had lost the control and, therefore, the accident had occurred. 6.1 Countering the same, referring to section 129 of the M.V. Act, 1988, Mr. 6. Advocate Mr. Darji submitted that facts of the case suggests that Truck had dashed the motorcycle from rear side. The Truck driver had lost the control and, therefore, the accident had occurred. 6.1 Countering the same, referring to section 129 of the M.V. Act, 1988, Mr. Thomas submitted that the rider of the motorcycle is required to wear the Helmet on the public road, as Helmet affords protection to the driver, and stated that had he worn the Helmet, probably, he could have survived; thus, stated that 10% negligence attributed to the motorcyclist is on the evidence on record. Mr. Thomas submitted that such negligent act of the driver is always to be recorded as to set up precedent for the others so as would follow the provisions of law and maintain their own safety, and stated that 10% negligence is required to be considered. 7. This Court is in concurrence with the argument of Advocate Mr. Thomas, since section 129 of the M.V. Act, mandates wearing of headgear at the public place. Such provisions ensures safety of individual, hence, 10% negligence attributed to the deceased would be in accordance to the law. 8. The income has been considered as Rs.5,000/-. The admitted fact on record that the deceased was serving as a Manager in Bharat Platochem Co. at Halol, taking into consideration the date of accident, it would be just and proper to consider his monthly income as Rs.7,500/-. The deceased was 39 years of age at the date of accident, hence, 40% prospective rise is to be considered. The dependents are two in number, therefore, 1/3rd amount is deducted; thus the yearly future loss would come as under: Actual Income 7,500/- Prospective Income 10,500/- [7,500 + 3,000 (40% rise)] 1/3rd Deduction 10,500 / 3 = 3,500 Yearly Future Loss 84,000/- [10,500–3,500 = 7,000x12] 8.1 The multiplier applied would be 15; hence, the dependency loss would come to Rs.12,60,000/- (84,000 x 15). Thus, accordingly the claimants would be entitled to Rs.12,60,000/- as dependency loss. 8.2 The deceased died leaving behind the widow and minor, they would be entitled for consortium loss as per Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) SCC 130 [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], thus, under the head of consortium loss, the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.80,000/-. 8.2 The deceased died leaving behind the widow and minor, they would be entitled for consortium loss as per Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) SCC 130 [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], thus, under the head of consortium loss, the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.80,000/-. 8.3 The amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- under the head of Funeral expenses have been appropriately granted by the learned Tribunal as per judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra). 9. In view of the above, compensation under different heads would be: Heads Amount Loss of Dependency Rs. 12,60,000/- Consortium Loss Rs. 80,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 13,70,000/- 10. The liability of 10% of the deceased is required to be deducted; thus, the compensation, which the claimants would be entitled, would be Rs.12,33,000/- [13,70,000 – 1,37,000 (13,70,000/10%)]. The Tribunal has assessed total compensation as Rs.8,50,120/-, however, after deducting 10% negligence, total amount of Rs.7,65,108/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, now the claimants would be entitled to get Rs.4,67,892/- (12,33,000 – 7,65,108) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%. 11. The enhanced amount of Rs.4,67,892/- be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within Eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 12. Out of the amount deposited, the Tribunal concerned is directed to disburse total amount, which comes to the share of the widow, by Account Payee cheque, after due verification; the amount, which comes to the share of the minor be invested in Fixed Deposit with any nationalized Bank in the name of the minor claimant for a period of Three years, and the interest on the FDR be periodically paid to the mother of the minor claimant. The said amount be paid to the claimant on attending majority without any reference to the Court.