JUDGMENT : MAULIK J.SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) and Cross-Objection filed by original claimants under Order XLI Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code (herein after referred as CPC) challenging judgment and award dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.409 of 2015. 2. The parties will be referred as their original position before the tribunal. 3. Short facts of the case appear to be as under; 3.1 That on 10.10.2015 between 8:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M, the deceased was returning from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar in the motorcar no. GJ-4-AP-4150, which is of his ownership and he was driving his car slowly and on correct side of the road. When he reached near the place of accident, the opponent no.1 came by driving Truck no. GJ-4-AT-9911 from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and in full speed and dashed with the car of the deceased. As a result of this accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. 3.2 As the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck involved in the accident, so the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of truck. 3.3 It appears that opponent no.1 & 2 though served but neither appeared nor filed any written statement. Whereas, opponent no.3-insurance company had contested the petition on all counts by filing its written statement. 3.4 After appreciating evidence on record, the Tribunal has found driver of the truck solely negligent for causing accident and held that deceased died due to vehicular accident due to sole negligence of the driver of the truck. 3.5 Thereafter, the Tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account, salary of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per months and considering 40% future rise of income, in all awarded Rs.57,40,000/- towards loss of dependency with 8% interest. 3.5 Thereafter, the Tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account, salary of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per months and considering 40% future rise of income, in all awarded Rs.57,40,000/- towards loss of dependency with 8% interest. 3.6 It has been alleged by the opponent No.3 – Insurance Company that driver of truck was holding fake driving licence, then considering various case laws cited before it, the Tribunal has directed the insurance Company to first pay entire compensation to the claimants then recover the same from the owner of the truck i.e., opponent no.2. 3.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, opponent no.3 – insurance company as well as original claimants have preferred first appeal and cross- objection respectively. 3.8 The respective parties before the Tribunal have submitted following oral and documentary evidence, which are as under:- Oral Evidence of Claimants SR. No. Nature of witness Exhibit 1. Deposition of examination in chief of claimant no.1 – Heenaben Khanjahbhai Vora 30 2. Deposition of examination in chief of witness of claimants – Ajaybhai Mohanbhai Dyundi 35 Documentary Evidence of Claimants SR.No. Nature of witness Exhibit 1. Appointment Letter 36 2. Salary slip 37 3. FIR 42 4. Spot panchnama 43 5. Inquest panchnama 44 6. P.M.Report 46 7. School leaving certificate of deceased 47 8. Pancard of deceased 52 9. Driving licence of deceased 53 10. R.C.Book of motorcar no. GJ 4 AP 4159 54 11. Driving licence of opponent no.1 61 12. R.C.Book of truck no. GJ 04 AT 9911 62 Oral Evidence of Opponents SR.No. Nature of witness Exhibit 1. Deposition of Sudhakarbhai S. Modliyar – Investigation Officer 88 2. Deposition of Devangbhai B. Parekh 93 Documentary Evidence of Opponents SR.No. Nature of witness Exhibit 1. Form no.54 89 2. Police complaint regarding Fake driving licence 90 3. Insurance policy of Truck no. GJ 4 AT 9911 94 SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT – INSURANCE COMPANY 4. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin Raval appearing for insurance company would submit that Tribunal has committed a gross error by directing the insurance company to pay compensation first then to recover it from owner of the truck. He would submit that Insurance Company has successfully proved its legal defence that driver of the truck was not holding a driving licence to drive the insured truck as his licence was found and proved to be fake. He would submit that Insurance Company has successfully proved its legal defence that driver of the truck was not holding a driving licence to drive the insured truck as his licence was found and proved to be fake. He would submit that Insurance company having successfully proved its defence before the Tribunal, no order of pay and recovery could have been passed by Tribunal. He would further submit that there was head on collision between motor car driven by deceased and insured truck then both drivers ought to have been equally held negligent for causing accident. 4.1 He would further submit that deceased was working in private employment then considering his status and nature of employment, no error has been committed by Tribunal in considering 40% future prospective income of deceased, but having not deducted any income tax out of the amount so considered by the Tribunal, awarded more than just compensation. 4.2 So, according to the submission of learned advocate for the appellant – insurance Company, there is an error committed by Tribunal in holding insurance company liable to pay compensation then requested to allow the appeal thereby to exonerate the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, appearing for the claimants would submit that there is no error committed by the Tribunal while directing the insurance company to pay first then recover compensation as the deceased was a third party and as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 , the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. 5.1 learned advocate Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, appearing for the claimants would submit that driver of the truck against whom an FIR was registered (Exh.43) and Panchnama (Exh.43) would clearly indicate the sole negligence of driver. He would submit that driver of the truck was not remained present to rebut his sole negligence as he was best person to throw light on happening of accident. He would submit that in view of the above said facts, the Tribunal has not committed any error by drawing an adverse inference against driver of the truck while holding him sole negligent. He would submit that in view of the above said facts, the Tribunal has not committed any error by drawing an adverse inference against driver of the truck while holding him sole negligent. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, appearing for the claimants would further submit that Tribunal has correctly considered the income of deceased Rs.30,000/- but committed an error in only considering 40% future perspective income instead of 50%. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, appearing for the claimants would submit that deceased was doing permanent job in HU Life Healthcare Private Limited, 100% subsidiary company of Nirma limited, working as Junior Regional Sales Manager, drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month, which is proved by claimants on record, having examined a witness, Mr.Ajaybhai Mohanbhai Dyundi at Exh. 35, who was Assistant General Manager in the said company. He would submit that nothing adverse comes out from his cross-examination by Insurance Company. He has drawn our attention to appointment letter of deceased issued by the aforesaid company on 14.05.2015 produced at Exh.36, wherein pay/remuneration receivable by deceased is clearly mentioned. 5.4 At last, he has requested this Court to consider conventional amount as per the ratio laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus NANU RAM & ORS. reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 , UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Versus SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS reported in 2021 (11) SCC 780 . Thus, he has requested this Court to grant just and reasonable compensation by considering aforesaid facts and evidence on record. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. No other and further submissions are being made. POINT OF DETERMINATION. (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal has committed an error while holding the insurance company liable to first pay compensation then to recover from owner of the vehicle? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal has committed any error in deciding the issue of negligence and quantum? APPRECIATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal has committed any error in deciding the issue of negligence and quantum? APPRECIATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. We would like to observe that the Tribunal has accepted the legal defence of Insurance Company that at the time of accident, the driver of truck was not holding a valid and effective licence as his licence produced at Exh.61 is found and proved to be fake. It is true that having accepted such the defence of insurance company, the Tribunal has directed the insurance company to first pay compensation then recover it from owner of truck. 8. It is undisputed fact that deceased was driver of car - third party. The truck involved in the accident was insured with Opponent No.3 – Insurance company. The issue involved in the matter is no longer remain res integra having already decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its various judgments, but we would like to rely upon the recent one in the case of IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company vs. Gita Devi reported in AIR 2023 SC 5545 , wherein the Supreme Court has summarized the law on the issue of fake driving licence. So, according to us, in the facts of present case, tribunal has not committed any error in directing insurance company to first pay compensation then recover from owner of truck involved in the accident. 9. Likewise, a Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) would also squarely applied to the facts of the case and thereby, we cannot find any error committed by Tribunal in passing such order of first pay compensation then recover it from owner of truck. As the issue is already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its aforesaid decisions, we would not further dwell into it but confirming such part of impugned judgement whereby tribunal has directed insurance company to first pay compensation then recover it from owner of truck involved in the accident. 10. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, it appears that FIR and Panchnama speaks sole negligence of driver of truck, who remained absent before the Tribunal then as per settled legal position, an adverse inference requires to be drawn against driver of truck. 11. 10. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, it appears that FIR and Panchnama speaks sole negligence of driver of truck, who remained absent before the Tribunal then as per settled legal position, an adverse inference requires to be drawn against driver of truck. 11. The aspect of sole negligence of driver is discussed in detailed by Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned judgment, to which, we are in complete agreement. 12. According to this Court, there is no error committed by Tribunal in holding driver of truck solely negligent for causing accident. So, we also confirmed the finding of tribunal holding driver of truck solely negligent for causing the accident. 13. This leads to consider last limb of argument of learned advocates for the respective parties about quantum of compensation. It has been proved on record by claimants that deceased was working as Junior Regional Sales Manager in HU Healthcare Life Private Limited, drawing monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- and the breakup of Rs.30,000/- so enumerated in his appointment letter, also confirmed by way of oral evidence of witness examined at Exh.35 by Ajaybhai. Once, claimants have proved permanent employment and the salary income of deceased, as per the ratio lay down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 50% prospective income requires to be considered as deceased was only 38 years old at the time of accident. 14. Lastly, as per the recent pronouncement of Honourable Supreme Court including Pranay Shetty (supra), Nanu Ram (supra) & Satinder Kaur (supra), each claimant would entitled to consortium amount Rs. 48,400/ i.e. loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium respectively. Likewise, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively is required to be granted to the claimants. 15. Thus, in view of above stated discussion and finding, claimants are entitled to the following compensation as under; Monthly income Rs.30,000/- 50% prospective rise Rs.15,000/- Total income Rs.45,000/- 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses Rs.12,250/- Actual monthly loss of dependency Rs.33,750/- Annual loss of dependency Rs.4,05,000/- Considering the age of deceased as 38 years - Multiplier 15 Loss of dependency Rs.60,75,000/- Loss of Consortium (Rs. 48,400 4 claimants) Rs.1,93,600/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation Rs.63,03,900/- Deducting compensation already awarded by the tribunal Rs.57,40,000/- Additional compensation with 7.5% interest from date of filing claim petition till realization Rs.5,63,900/- 16. 48,400 4 claimants) Rs.1,93,600/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Total compensation Rs.63,03,900/- Deducting compensation already awarded by the tribunal Rs.57,40,000/- Additional compensation with 7.5% interest from date of filing claim petition till realization Rs.5,63,900/- 16. Thus, in view of the above, the claimants would entitle to receive the additional compensation of Rs.5,63,900/-, which shall carry 7.5% interest from the date of petition till realization. 17. Mr.Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the original claimants states that original claimant no.3 – father of deceased died on 18.10.2022 (Post award) during the pendency of present appeal, he would request that 20% share of claimant no.3 may be equally distributed between claimant no.1 and 4. There was further request that considering the age of the claimant no.4 (mother of deceased), who is around 82 years at present, her share of award, which has been either invested by Tribunal or to be received to her by way of additional compensation, may be given to her without any further investment. 18. Considering the above stated facts and circumstance of the case, we would like to distribute 20% share of claimant no.3, being died during the pendency of appeal in favour of claimant No.1 and claimant no.4, equally i.e., 10% each to Claimant No.1 (daughter in law) and 10 % in favour of claimant no.4 (widow of claimant no.3). 19. We are of the opinion that considering the age of claimant no.4 – mother of deceased, her share of awarded amount either invested by Tribunal in FDR pursuant of any order passed by this Court, and also an additional compensation which we now hereby awarded, she will entitle to receive by way of present order, her share of award amount requires to be paid to her without any investment in FDR. CONCLUSION 20. In view of the above stated facts and discussions, reasons and our findings recorded, we are of the opinion that Tribunal has not committed any error in holding insurance company first liable to pay compensation then to recover it from owner of the truck insured by it involved in the accident. 20.1 The Tribunal has not committed any error in holding driver of the truck solely negligent for causing accident. 20.2 The original claimants are entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs.5,63,900/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. 20.1 The Tribunal has not committed any error in holding driver of the truck solely negligent for causing accident. 20.2 The original claimants are entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs.5,63,900/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. 20.3 The share of the complainant No.3, who died during the pendency of the appeal (20%) is to be distributed equally amongst claimant no.1 – the widow of deceased and claimant no.4 – mother of deceased respectively. 20.4 The insurance company is directed to deposit with tribunal the additional compensation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Once, the insurance company deposits the additional compensation, then entitled to recover such additional compensation amount and also compensation amount so awarded by tribunal from owner of the truck by way of filing of execution application in accordance with law. 20.5 Once, the additional compensation will be deposited by Insurance Company, the Tribunal is hereby directed to disburse the entire share of claimant no.4 (mother of the deceased) in her favour through RTGS/NEFT or in other banking mode suitable to the Tribunal. Likewise, any share of award of claimant no.4 lying in FDR shall also be released in her favour forthwith. 20.6 So far as share of claimant no.1 is concerned, out of additional compensation, which will be deposited by Insurance Company, 30% amount may be disbursed in her favour through RTGS/NEFT or in other banking mode suitable to the Tribunal and remaining 70% may be invested in her name in non-cumulative FDRs for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank of her choice, wherein she is entitled to receive periodical interest. It goes without saying that on maturity of FDR, claimant no.1 be entitled to receive the amount of FDR. 20.7 As the claimant no.2 – son of deceased appears to be minor as on today, we would like to direct tribunal to invest his share of additional compensation in FDR in any nationalized bank, for a period of 3 years, and on attaining the age of majority, he is entitled to receive such FDRs. 20.8 Thus, in view of the above, the present appeal filed by Insurance Company is dismissed and cross-objection filed by claimants is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. With no order as to costs. 20.8 Thus, in view of the above, the present appeal filed by Insurance Company is dismissed and cross-objection filed by claimants is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. With no order as to costs. 20.9 Records and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.