JUDGMENT : MAULIK J.SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act by the original claimants challenging judgment and award dated 18.04.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxiliary) Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1223 of 1997. Parties are referred as per their original position. 2. Short facts: 2.1 On 25.03.1997 the deceased Pareshbhai Nandubhai Patel was riding his scooter bearing registration No.GBN 7703 from Gota towards Chandlodiya at about 7:30 pm in the evening and when he reached near Bhavani Auto Care, at that time opponent No.1 came with his tanker bearing registration No.GRX 4091 from the opposite side in rash and negligent manner dashed with scooter of deceased and ran wheel over the deceased. 2.2 It is the case of claimants that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of tanker which came on wrong side and dashed with the scooter of the deceased, he has sustained injuries and succumbed to it. 2.3 The claimants are legal heirs of deceased Pareshbhai who died in vehicular accident filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘M. V. Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.24,64,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of tanker involved in the accident. 2.4 It appears that driver of tanker was deleted and owner of tanker has appeared and filed his written statement at Exh.20. the opponent No.3 – insurance company of tanker has also filed written statement at Exh.25 denying all averments made in the claim petition. 2.5 After appreciating evidence on record, tribunal has found both drivers negligent for causing accident. Thereby, held that driver of tanker was negligent to the extent of 85% whereas deceased / rider of the scooter was found 15% negligent for causing accident. 2.6 So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, after appreciating the fact that deceased was son of agriculturist having agricultural land and income from animal husbandry work, due to supervision loss caused to the family of the deceased, monthly income is considered as Rs.3000/- and after following decision of Honourable Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Ors. 2.6 So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, after appreciating the fact that deceased was son of agriculturist having agricultural land and income from animal husbandry work, due to supervision loss caused to the family of the deceased, monthly income is considered as Rs.3000/- and after following decision of Honourable Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , awarded total compensation of Rs.5,21,000/-, out of which 15% was deducted for contributory negligent of deceased and thereby, tribunal has awarded total Rs.4,43,000/- to the claimants. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal, original claimants have preferred the present appeal on issue of negligence as well as quantum of compensation so awarded by the tribunal. 4. Submissions of appellant: 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kaival D. Patel for learned advocate Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi would submit that the tribunal has committed serious error by holding deceased contributory negligent to the extent of 15% for causing an accident when tribunal itself came to the conclusion that tanker had came from wrong side of the road and dashed with the deceased then in absence of any oral evidence of driver of the tanker to rebut such fact, deceased could not have been held contributory negligent for the accident. He would further submit that FIR and Panchnama clearly prove sole negligence of driver of tanker who remained absent before the tribunal to rebut the allegations of his sole negligence, then in such factual situation, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against him. 4.2 He would further submit that accident had taken place in outskirts of the Ahmedabad City but it was not on highway then tanker driver has to be more cautious while plying heavy vehicle in public place. According to him, it is not the case of contributory negligence and to that extent impugned judgment requires to be interfered with by this Court. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Patel for the claimants would submit that deceased was son of agriculturist holding agricultural land and also having 15 cows and 10 buffaloes, out of which he was used to earn handsome amount. He would further submit that proof regarding income from selling milk was submitted on record, but the same was not considered by the tribunal. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Patel for the claimants would submit that deceased was son of agriculturist holding agricultural land and also having 15 cows and 10 buffaloes, out of which he was used to earn handsome amount. He would further submit that proof regarding income from selling milk was submitted on record, but the same was not considered by the tribunal. He would submit that at least Rs.5000/- per month income of deceased could have been considered by the tribunal instead of Rs.3000/- per month while granting dependency benefits to the claimants. 4.4 He would further submit that to prove sole negligence of driver of tanker, claimant has examined one eyewitness namely Navinbhai at Exh.37 but tribunal has discarded his oral evidence. 4.5 Lastly, he would submit that claimants are entitled to receive consortium amount and loss to estate and funeral expenses as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 16 SCC 680 , Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 . 4.6 So he would submit that claimants may be awarded just compensation. 5. Submission of respondents 5.1 Per contra learned advocate Mr. Arun Dave learned advocate with Ms. Sharmishta Dave learned advocate for the respondent would submit that the tribunal has not committed any error while adjudicating the issue of negligence and also quantum which according to insurance company just and reasonable and no interference is required by this Court. 5.2 He would submit that there was head-on collision of both the vehicles on the main road and considering Panchnama, no error has been committed by the tribunal in holding deceased contributory negligent @ 15% for causing accident. 5.3 He would further submit that the deceased was not holding any land as the record indicate that land was in the name of father of the deceased and the cross examination of widow of the deceased at Exh.36 clearly indicate that her father in law has three brothers and they were jointly holding such land and also doing agricultural activity jointly having joint family. 5.4 He has drawn our attention that deceased was also having a younger brother who would be one of the co-legal heirs of the land held by his father. He would further submit that widow was not aware about actual income derived from agricultural activity, and so also not aware number of cattle possessed by the deceased. She has further admitted that her husband has retained one person to fetch the milk but having no licence to run Khodiyar Dugdhalay (milk center) which according to her, started by her father in law wherein her husband was used to work. He would further submit that reading of cross examination of the widow. It has come on record that claimant has failed to prove actual income of deceased from agricultural activity and animal husbandry activity. So he would submit that considering the date of accident i.e. 25.03.1997 and minimum wages for doing supervision was prevailing at the rate of Rs.1400/- per month, income which was considered by the tribunal to Rs.3000/- per month would be much higher then which was to be considered while awarding compensation. 5.5 Learned advocate for the insurance company would submit that out of total 5 claimants, claimant No.5 happens to be grandfather of the deceased, who could not be depend upon deceased when claimant No.3 who happens to be son of claimant No.5 is alive. Claimant No.3 – father of the deceased having his own agricultural land and running milk center and thereby having his own source of income could not be considered to be dependent in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). According to him, only three claimants i.e. widow, minor son and mother of deceased can be considered as dependent upon deceased. Thereby 1/3rd personal expenses requires to be considered instead of 1/4th. 5.6 He would further submit that when the tribunal has considered higher income while computing compensation then this Court may not consider the future rise of income of the deceased. 5.7 So far as granting of conventional amount in favour of claimants, learned advocate for the insurance company has submitted that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation which requires no interference. So, according to submission of learned advocate of insurance company there is no error committed by the tribunal which requires interference by this Court, thus requested to dismiss the appeal. So, according to submission of learned advocate of insurance company there is no error committed by the tribunal which requires interference by this Court, thus requested to dismiss the appeal. 6. No other and further submissions made by respective learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through Record and Proceeding of the claim petition. 7. Point for consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, tribunal has committed any error while adjudicating issue of negligence and quantum? 8. Findings of the Court 8.1 It remained undisputed before the tribunal that deceased was rider of scooter, which was dashed by tanker insured by the insurance company on the outskirts of Ahmedabad but on main road going from Gota to Chandlodiya. The tribunal has discussed issue of negligence in para 10 of its judgement and came to the conclusion that tanker had come from wrong side of the road and dashed on front portion of scooter and further observed that after hitting the scooter, tanker did not stop and went on for 10-15 feets. Having so observed aforesaid facts which is clearly spell out from Panchnama, tribunal still held that deceased was contributory negligent for 15%. 8.2 The facts are very eloquent and after going through the FIR – Panchnama, it is very much clear like a day that tanker driver was rashly and negligently came on wrong side and dashed with scooter and its speed must have been uncontrollable so it dragged the scooter and its rider to some extent. The driver of the tanker happens to be eyewitness of the accident and best witness could have been examined by opponent. Thereby, actual happening of accident could have come on record. But driver of tanker was remained absent before the tribunal having not examined by the insurance company, then as per well settled legal position of law, an adverse inference requires to be drawn against him. 8.3 It is true that one so called eyewitness Navinbhai was examined by the claimants at Exh.37 to prove sole negligence of driver of tanker. Nonetheless, tribunal has discarded his evidence by observing that he was a chance eyewitness since neither he has registered FIR nor given any statement to the police in relation to the accident and it has been recorded in his cross-examination that he was known to the family of the deceased since last 45 years. Nonetheless, tribunal has discarded his evidence by observing that he was a chance eyewitness since neither he has registered FIR nor given any statement to the police in relation to the accident and it has been recorded in his cross-examination that he was known to the family of the deceased since last 45 years. He has further admitted that there is nothing available to show his presence at the scene of accident. He has further admitted that he had not seen tanker prior to its collision with scooter. 8.4 Nonetheless, in view of aforesaid facts and after going through the Panchnama, we are fully satisfied that tanker had come on wrong side dashed with scooter which resulted into accident. 8.5 We are also of the opinion that said witness is nothing but a chance witness whose evidence is not inspiring any confidence while adjudicating issue of negligence. Thus, it is not a case of contributory negligence of the deceased when driver of the tanker came on wrong side and dashed with the scooter. Therefore, we are of the opinion that driver of tanker was solely negligent for causing accident. 8.6 So far as quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is concerned, it is more or less undisputed that deceased was son of agriculturist whose father was holding joint agricultural land and run milk business in the name of Khodiyar Dugdhalay. At the same time, there is no convincing evidence brought on record by the claimants to establish actual income of deceased from source of agricultural and animal husbandry activity. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that in a case of death of agriculturist whose agricultural land and animals would be available to his legal heirs, then they are entitled to get supervisory loss because of untimely death of deceased. To support this observation, we are relying upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of State of Hariyana vs. Jasbeer Kaur reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484 . 8.7 We have gone through the oral evidence of claimants and documentary evidence albeit not proved by claimants in support of their case that deceased was used to earn through milk business, we are of the opinion that supervisory loss quantified by the tribunal to Rs.3000/- per month is just and proper keeping in mind year of accident. 8.7 We have gone through the oral evidence of claimants and documentary evidence albeit not proved by claimants in support of their case that deceased was used to earn through milk business, we are of the opinion that supervisory loss quantified by the tribunal to Rs.3000/- per month is just and proper keeping in mind year of accident. It requires to be appreciated that due to untimely death of deceased to fetch income from agricultural activity and animal husbandry activity, claimants are required to engage a person for which a supervisory loss caused to the family of deceased needs consideration. So keeping in mind all these facts, we are of the opinion that there is supervisory loss to Rs.3000/- per month in the present case. The tribunal has committed an error by not considering future prospective income of the deceased. According to us, in view of ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 40% future prospective income requires to be considered i.e. Rs.1200/- p.m.. 8.8 It has come on record that father of deceased was the co-owner of agricultural land and also run milk center then in view of the dictum of Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra) neither claimant No.3 (father of the deceased) nor claimant No.5 (grandfather of the deceased) can be considered as dependent upon deceased. In view of above, 1/3rd personal expenses requires to be deducted instead of 1/4th as deducted by the tribunal. 8.9 Likewise, considering the age of the deceased i.e. 25 years at the time of accident, tribunal has applied multiplier of 18. At least in view of recent decision of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Magma General Insurance (supra) Satinder Kaur (supra) claimant Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to receive consortium and also appropriate amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 9. Conclusion 9.1 The upshot of said discussion, reasons and findings so recorded herein above, claimants are entitled to receive compensation as follows: Actual Income Rs.3000/- 40% Future Prospective Income Rs.1200/- Total Rs.4200/- 1/3rd Personal Expenses Rs.1400/- Rs.2800/- p.m. by 18 Loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/- Loss of consortium (48400 X 4) Rs.1,93,600/- Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/- Total Rs.8,34,700/- 9.2 As the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,43,000/-. 18,150/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/- Total Rs.8,34,700/- 9.2 As the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,43,000/-. In view of above, claimants are entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs.3,91,700/- which shall carry 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 9.3 In view of aforesaid observations, discussion and findings of this Court, we hold that driver of tanker was solely negligent for causing accident. 9.4 Claimants are entitled to Rs.3,91,700/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till its realization 9.5 Opponent No.3 – insurance company shall deposit additional compensation with tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 9.6 Once said additional compensation will be deposited by the insurance company, the tribunal shall disburse such amount in favour of the claimant through RTGS / NEFT or any other mode in accordance with law. 9.7 Thus, in view of above, appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.