JUDGMENT : MAULIK J.SHELAT, J. 1. All these First Appeals are filed by original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M. V. Act’) challenging the common judgment and award dated 17.03.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxilliary – VII) (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) at Gondal in respective claim petitions. 2. With the joint request of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, all these appeals are taken up for admission and final hearing. 2.1 Admit. Learned advocate Mr. G. C. Mazmudar waives service of notice of admission for respondent – Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of minibus). Learned advocate Ms. Kirti S. Pathak waives service of notice of admission for respondent - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of Truck). Presence of other respondents not required for adjudication of appeals as insurance companies are not disputing it's respective liabilities. 2.2 Parties are referred as their original position. 3. Short Facts: 3.1 Short facts of claimants' case are that on 15.02.2012, the deceased Niteshbhai Manilal Mistri with other injured claimants were travelling in Mini Bus No.GJ-1CT-4505 as passengers and were going for Darshan to Virpur-Somnath-Dwarka and when the said bus reached on Gondal Rajkot Bye-pass road, near Umwada Chokdi, the driver of Truck No. GJ-3V-9149 came driving his truck from the opposite side in rash and negligent manner, at an excessive speed, without observing traffic rules so as to endanger the human life and ultimately by coming on the wrong side of the road dashed with the Mini Bus No.GJ- 1CT-4505 in which, deceased and other injured claimants were travelling and thus, the accident in question has happened. It is further averred that due to the accident, the deceased died and other claimants sustained fracture and other grievous injuries. 3.2 The legal heirs of deceased and injured claimants have filed their respective claim petitions seeking compensation from driver, owner and insurance company of truck and minibus involved in the accident. 3.3 After appreciating the evidence on record, the tribunal has found driver of truck 70% negligent and driver of minibus 30% negligent for causing accident. 3.4 The tribunal has partly allowed the respective claim petitions by directing all opponents to pay compensation jointly and severely to the claimants. 3.3 After appreciating the evidence on record, the tribunal has found driver of truck 70% negligent and driver of minibus 30% negligent for causing accident. 3.4 The tribunal has partly allowed the respective claim petitions by directing all opponents to pay compensation jointly and severely to the claimants. 3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded by the tribunal, out of all claim petitions being filed by the claimants, present appeals are filed in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 171 of 2012, 168 of 2012, 167 of 2012 and 227 of 2012. 3.6 As the facts and happenings of accident are common in all the appeals, this Court would like to consolidate all the First Appeals and to pass common judgment in all appeals as has been done by the tribunal. First Appeal No.3788 of 2021 in MACP No.171 of 2021 4. The present appeal is filed by the injured claimant who was an engineering student studying in Civil Engineering at the time of accident. It has been pleaded by claimant before the tribunal to consider his notional income to Rs.10,000/- per month being an engineering student. The disability which is sustained by the claimant is agreed to 13% on body as a whole. 4.1 After considering evidence on record, tribunal has considered income of claimant to Rs.7500/- per month and considering 13% agreed disability body as a whole it has awarded Rs.2,10,600/- towards future loss of income. So far as other heads are concerned, tribunal has awarded Rs.7700/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and Rs.8000/- for special diet, attendant charges and transport allowance. In all, tribunal has awarded Rs.2,36,300/-. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Karna Dhomse for original claimant would submit that claimant was studying in Civil Engineering, then considering the judgment of Honourable Apex Court in case of Navjot Singh vs Harpreet Singh reported in 2020 ACJ 2152 , tribunal ought to have consider Rs.10,000/- per month notional income of engineering student and committed an error in assessing income of injured claimant to Rs.7500/- per month. 5.1 He would further submit that tribunal has committed an error in not at all considering future prospective income. 5.2 He would lastly submit that inadequate compensation has been awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering and special diet etc. 5.1 He would further submit that tribunal has committed an error in not at all considering future prospective income. 5.2 He would lastly submit that inadequate compensation has been awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering and special diet etc. Thus, in view of above, he would submit that this Court may grant just and reasonable compensation. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar and Ms. Pathak appearing for the respective insurance company would submit that in absence of any income proof, there is no error committed by the tribunal in considering income of engineering student to Rs.7500/- per month. So far as other aspect of the matter is concerned, they have jointly submitted that as such no error has been committed by the tribunal while awarding compensation. According to them, there is no scope of enhancement in compensation and requested this Court to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. No other and further submissions are being made. 7.1 It is remained undisputed before the tribunal that injured claimant was studying in Civil Engineering at the time of accident on 15.02.2012 then naturally there would not be any proof of income to be submitted by claimant being student. 7.2 At this stage, it is apposite to refer and rely upon a decision of Honorable Apex Court in case of M R Krishna Murthi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2020 15 SCC 493 , wherein it is observed as under: “[23] From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid judgments, inter alia, following principles can be culled out which would be relevant for deciding the instant appeal: (i) In those cases where the victim of the accident is not an earning person but a student, while assessing the compensation for loss of future earning, the focus of the examination would be the career prospect and the likely earning of such a person in future. For example, where the claimant is pursuing a particular professional course, the poseer would be: what would have been his income had he joined a service commensurating with the said course. That can be the future earning. (ii) There may be cases where the victim is not, at that stage, doing any such course to get a particular job. He or she may be studying in a school. That can be the future earning. (ii) There may be cases where the victim is not, at that stage, doing any such course to get a particular job. He or she may be studying in a school. In such a case, future career would depend upon multiple factors like the family background, choice/interest of the complainant to pursue a particular career, facilities available to him/her for adopting such a career, the favourable surrounding circumstances to see which would have enabled the claimant to successfully pick up the said career etc. If the chosen field is employment, then the future earning can be taken on the basis of salary and allowances which are payable for such calling. In case, career is a particular profession, the future earning would depend on host of other factors on the basis of which chances to achieve success in such a profession can be ascertained. (iii) There may be cases like Deo Patodi where even a student, the claimant would have made earnings on part- time basis or would have received offer for a particular job. In such cases, these factors would also assume relevance. (iv) After ascertaining the likely earning of the victim in the aforesaid manner, the nature of injuries and disability suffered as a result thereof would be kept in mind while determining as to how much earning has been affected thereby. Here, impact of injuries on functional disability is to be seen. In case of death of victim, it would result in total loss of earning. In the case of injuries, the nature of disability becomes important. Such an exercise was undertaken in N. Manjegowda case.” 7.3 Thus, in view of above stated facts and principle laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in the aforesaid case, as such the Tribunal was required to consider a decision of Honourable Supreme court in case of Navjot Singh (supra) thereby required to consider Rs.10,000/- per month as notional income of the claimant. So, the income of the claimant is required to be considered Rs.10,000/- p.m. being student of civil engineering. 7.4 The tribunal has committed an error by not considering 40 % future prospective income. So, the income of the claimant is required to be considered Rs.10,000/- p.m. being student of civil engineering. 7.4 The tribunal has committed an error by not considering 40 % future prospective income. It is now well settled law that in the cases of permanent disability, while granting future loss of income tribunal is required to consider future prospective income of injured claimant but tribunal has not considered any future rise of income on the actual income of claimant, at the time of accident which is required to be considered as per law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in case of Pappu Deo Yadav. Vs. Nareshkumar reported in 2022 (13) SCC 790 , wherein it has been held as under:- “[7] Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects too; and two, the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi (Supra n.2) involved assessment of compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench decision in Jagdish (Supra n.3) was not binding, but rather that the subsequent decision in Anant (Supra n.6) to the extent that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi (Supra n.2) is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx [12] In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx [12] In view of the above decisive rulings of this court, the High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi principle).” 7.5 Thus, in view of above settled position of law, 40% future perspective income requires to be considered while granting future loss of income. After examining the facts of the case and disability sustained by claimant, we deem it fit to grant Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, attendant and transport charges 7.6 Thus, in view of above Claimant is entitled to receive compensation as follow: Income Rs.10,000/- Future Prospective Income Rs.4000/- Total Rs.14000/- Disability 13% agreed Rs.1820/- mp 18 - 1820 X 12 X 18 Total Rs.3,93,120/- Medical expenses, Rs.7,700/- pain shock and suffering and Rs.15,000/- special diet, attendant and transportation Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.4,25,820/- 7.7 The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,36,300/-. Hence, in view of above, claimant of MACP No. 171 of 2012 is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,89,520-. First Appeal No.3789 of 2024 in MACP No.168 of 2012 8. The present appeal is filed by an injured claimant who was aged about 11 years at the time of accident having sustained 8% agreed disability on body as a whole. After appreciating evidence on record, tribunal has awarded in all Rs.72,000/- towards compensation to the claimant. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Dhomse appearing for the claimant would submit that the issue involved in the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in 2014 (14) SCC 396 whereby tribunal was required to grant Rs. Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability benefits which includes pain, shock and suffering and discomfort of claimant. He would submit that the tribunal has wrongly considered monthly income of claimant that too without any future prospective income. According to his submission, claimant would entitle to receive Rs.1,00,000/- towards future loss of income and Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.8000/- towards special diet etc. 9. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respective insurance companies would support the judgment and award by the tribunal. According to his submission, claimant would entitle to receive Rs.1,00,000/- towards future loss of income and Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.8000/- towards special diet etc. 9. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respective insurance companies would support the judgment and award by the tribunal. Nonetheless, they are unable to controvert the submission made by learned advocate for the claimant in relation to awarding inadequate compensation by tribunal by ignoring binding decision of the Honourable Apex Court in case Mallikarjun (supra). 10. Thus in view of above said legal position, we are of the opinion that claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards future loss of income which includes pain, shock and suffering and discomfort to be faced by the minor and injured claimant and also entitled to Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.8000/- towards special diet, attendant charges and transport charges. 10.1 So, in view of above, in all, claimant would entitled to Rs.1,13,000/- out of which He has already received Rs.72,000/- as awarded by the tribunal then claimant is entitled to Rs.41,000/- as an additional compensation. First Appeal No.3790 of 2024 in MACP No.167 of 2012 11. Original injured claimant was aged about 76 years at the time of accident, died during pendency of claimant petition which was persuade by his surviving legal heirs. The tribunal has considered Rs.7500/- as his monthly income and agreed 20% disability on body as a whole. Thereby awarded Rs.90,000/- towards future loss of income. Over and above, the tribunal has awarded Rs.22,500/- towards actual loss of income, Rs.2,35,300/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and Rs.8000/- towards special diet, attendant and transport charges. In all tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,65,800/- to the claimant. 11.1 Considering the facts and circumstances and age of original claimant who died natural death, we are of the opinion that global additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded to the claimants which would meet with the ends of justice. 11.2 Thus in view of above, claimants are entitled to additional amount of Rs.25,000/- as global compensation. First Appeal No.3791 of 2024 in MACP No.227 of 2012. 12. The present appeal is filed by the legal heirs of deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Dhomse appearing for the claimants would submit that the tribunal has committed an error in applying 15 multiplier though deceased was less then 36 years at the time of accident. First Appeal No.3791 of 2024 in MACP No.227 of 2012. 12. The present appeal is filed by the legal heirs of deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Dhomse appearing for the claimants would submit that the tribunal has committed an error in applying 15 multiplier though deceased was less then 36 years at the time of accident. According to him, the tribunal ought to have apply 16 multiplier instead of 15 as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in case of Shashikala Vs. Gangalakshmamma reported in 2015 (9) SCC 150 . He would further submit that considering the recent decision of the Honourable Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Versus Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 and Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur Versus United India Insurance Co.Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 appropriate enhancement in compensation under the head of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses may be considered by this Court. He has requested this Court to grant just and reasonable compensation. 13. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for the respective insurance company have submitted that the tribunal has not committed any error in granting compensation under the respective heads. They would submit that deceased was more than 35 years old at the time of accident then no error has been committed by the tribunal in applying 15 multiplier. So they have requested not to interfere with impugned judgment and award in the present case. 14. After appreciating the submissions canvassed by both the sides if we peruse the impugned judgment in para 21 of the impugned judgment it is observed that deceased was aged about 35 years 5 months and 14 days at the time of accident, then undisputedly he had not completed 36 years at the time of accident. As per the decision of Honourable Apex Court in case of Shashikala (supra) which reads as under; “Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained. Total loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.16,82,310/- (Rs.1,20,165/- x 14).” 14.1 In view of aforesaid said pronouncement of Honourable Apex Court, we are of the view that considering present facts and circumstances of the case, an appropriate multiplier would be 16 and not 15 as applied by the tribunal. Likewise, considering the ratio laid down in case of Magma General Insurance Company (supra) and Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra), claimants are entitled to Rs.48,400/- towards consortium, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses. 14.2 In view of above, claimant would entitled to receive following compensation under different heads; 14.3 Out of total compensation of Rs.87,94,748/-, an amount of Rs.82,24,920/- has already been paid to the claimants. Thus, claimants are entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs.5,69,828/-. Sl. Heads Amount Reasons /Consideration A Monthly Income Rs. 48,065/- As per ITR B Future Prospective income Rs. 19,226/- 40% deceased being 36 years of age and being self employed C Less – deduction towards personal expenditure Rs. 22,430/ 1/3rd of income Monthly dependency loss Rs. 44,861/- D Net yearly income Rs.5,38,328/- Rs. 44,861/ X 12 E Multiplier 16 Being 35 years of age F Future Loss of income Rs.86,13,248 D X E G Medical Expenses H Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- I Loss of Consortium Rs.1,45,200/- Rs.48,400/-X3 =Rs.1,45,200/- J Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation Rs.87,94,748/- F++H+I+J 15. All these appeals filed by respective claimants are hereby partly allowed in above terms and respective claimants in their First Appeals / Claim Petitions are entitled for additional compensation as under which carry 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. Sr. All these appeals filed by respective claimants are hereby partly allowed in above terms and respective claimants in their First Appeals / Claim Petitions are entitled for additional compensation as under which carry 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. Sr. No. MACP No. FA No. Additional Compensation 1 171 of 2012 3788 of 2024 Rs.1,89,520/- 2 168 of 2012 3789 of 2024 Rs.41,000/- 3 167 of 2012 3790 of 2024 Rs.25,000/- 4 227 of 2012 3791 of 2024 Rs.5,69,828/- 15.1 The insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid additional compensation together with interest @ 7.5% from date of petition till its deposit which shall be deposited within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this judgment, as per their respective share. 15.2 Once such amount will be deposited by the insurance company, the tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount in favour of respective claimants on proper verification through RTGS / NEFT or any other mode suitable to the tribunal in accordance with law. 15.3 In view of above, appeals are partly allowed with no order as to costs.