JUDGMENT : MAULIK J.SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’) by the original claimants against judgement and award dated 29.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxilliary-I), Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’) in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 573 of 2004. Parties will be referred as per their original status. 2. Short facts: 2.1 On 01.06.2004 deceased Govindbhai was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-2-AA-6318 and passing nearby B.K. Cinema, Visnagar. At that point of time, one TATA Sumo Car bearing registration No. GJ-18-A-2679 came in high speed and dashed at rear side of motorcycle of deceased. The rider of motorcycle having sustained serious injuries succumbed to it during the course of treatment. 2.2 The legal heirs of deceased have filed MACP No. 573 of 2004 under Section 166 of the MV Act against driver, owner and insurer of TATA Sumo car for compensation of Rs.36,00,000/-. 2.3 The driver of the TATA Sumo appears to have been deleted below Exh.11 before the tribunal. The owner of the TATA Sumo car has chosen not to appear. Opponent No.3 being insurer of TATA Sumo car though appeared through its advocate but not filed its written statement. Thus none of the opponents have either filed any written statement nor lead any oral or documentary evidence. 2.4 FIR came to be registered by one of the occupants of TATA Sumo Car produced at Exh.21, wherein it has been stated that TATA Sumo car was coming in high speed and deceased was crossing the road on his motorcycle. At that time, driver of TATA Sumo car applied the break but could not control it and the accident inquestion had taken place. The panchnama was submitted at Exh.22 confirming facts narrated in FIR. After appreciating evidence on record the tribunal has found driver of TATA Sumo car 80% negligent, whereas deceased - rider of motorcycle was held 20% contributory negligent for causing accident. The panchnama was submitted at Exh.22 confirming facts narrated in FIR. After appreciating evidence on record the tribunal has found driver of TATA Sumo car 80% negligent, whereas deceased - rider of motorcycle was held 20% contributory negligent for causing accident. 2.5 So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, after appreciating documentary as well as oral evidence submitted by claimants in support of their claim, the tribunal has awarded in all compensation of Rs.11,88,710/-, out which deducted 20% for contributory negligence of the deceased and thereby, awarded Rs.9,50,968/- in favour of the claimants with 7.5 % interest from the date of claim petition till its realisation. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgement and award, not granting adequate compensation as well as wrongly fixing 20% contributory negligence of deceased, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Submissions of appellant: 3.1 Mr. Harnish V. Darji, learned advocate appearing for the claimants at the outset submitted that appellant No.5 i.e. claimant No.5 (father of the deceased) is already died on 12.08.2008 during the pendency of claim petition and appellant No.6 i.e. claimant No.6 (mother of the deceased) died during the pendency of the present appeal on 29.06.2021. Copy of death certificate of appellant No.6 is submitted before us, which is taken on record. 3.2 Learned advocate for the claimants would submit that surviving appellants – original claimant Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of appellant Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. Thereby, requested this Court to consider the appeal on merits and if so found may grant additional compensation in favour of surviving claimants. 3.3 He would further submit that the tribunal has wrongly considered 20% contributory negligence of the deceased when it has come on record by way of FIR registered against driver of Sumo car that he was driving his car at uncontrollable speed and despite applying breaks, he could not prevent collision. He would further submit that an adverse inference may be drawn against driver of the car as he has not remained present before the tribunal. 3.4 He would further submit that rider of the motorcycle requires to take care while crossing main road but considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and FIR and Panchnama of scene of accident would indicate that deceased may be negligent but not to the extent of 20%. 3.4 He would further submit that rider of the motorcycle requires to take care while crossing main road but considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and FIR and Panchnama of scene of accident would indicate that deceased may be negligent but not to the extent of 20%. 3.5 Learned advocate for the claimant would submit that the tribunal has committed an error while granting dependency benefits by not taking into account any future prospective income as deceased was drawing salary of Rs.9056/- working with the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) which is confirmed by salary certificate issued by the Industrial Training Institute on 16.06.2004 produced at Exh.28. 3.6 He would further submit that deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of accident then appropriate multiplier would be 14 instead of 13, as applied by the tribunal. 3.7 He would further submit that considering the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (13) Scale 12 , 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 allow the present appeal. 4. Submissions of respondents: 4.1 Per contra, Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate appearing for the opponent No.3 – insurance company has vehemently objected the present appeal by submitting that no error is committed by the tribunal while adjudicating the claim petition and thereby awarded just and reasonable compensation to the claimants. 4.2 He would submit that rider of the motorcycle is required to take due care while crossing the main road and no error has been committed by the tribunal in fixing 20% contributory negligence of deceased. He would further submit that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that driver of car was unable to control his vehicle so stated in FIR then also negligence of the deceased may be considered while deciding issue of negligence. 4.3 He would further submit that considering prevailing law at the time of passing of award, tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation then no error is committed while granting compensation to the claimants. 4.3 He would further submit that considering prevailing law at the time of passing of award, tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation then no error is committed while granting compensation to the claimants. So, he has requested this Court to dismiss the appeal. 5. Rejoinder of the claimants: 5.1 Mr. Darji, learned advocate for the claimants would submit that considering the nature of accident and as motorcycle was dashed from behind by the car and it has come on record that motorcycle was crossing the road, he would request this Court to consider only 10% contributory negligence of the deceased instead of 20%. 6. Learned advocate for the insurance company would not be in a position to dislodge the said fact. Thereby, broadly agreed to the reasonable request made by the learned advocate for the claimants, so far as to asses the contributory negligence of the deceased. 7. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings. No other and further submissions are made. 8. Point for consideration: 8.1 Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, any error is committed by the tribunal while deciding issue of negligence and awarding compensation? 9. Findings of the Court: 9.1 At the outset, it is required to be considered that the insurance company has not filed its written statement in support of its defence and FIR was filed against driver of the car who was not examined by the insurance company to rebut the allegations of his sole negligence. It appears from reading of FIR that the same was filed by one of the occupants of the Car it discloses that the TATA Sumo car dashed with the motorcycle while, rider of the motorcycle was crossing the road and despite applying breaks, he could not control the car.The panchnama also suggests damage to motorcycle at its rear portion. Therefore, best witness to the accident was driver of TATA Sumo car who was not examined by the insurance company. So, considering all these evidence on record, it is true that care and caution was required by the rider of motorcycle while crossing the road but when the car was dashed at rear portion of the motorcycle, then it was a more duty on part of the TATA Sumo car (bigger vehicle) to avoid any collision with the vehicle going ahead of it. According to our view and taking note of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, we may fix 10% contributory negligence of deceased instead of 20% so fixed by the tribunal. 9.2 So far as not considering future prospective income of deceased is concerned, by now law is well settled that while granting dependency loss, tribunal is required to consider future prospective income as per his / her vocation and age as the case may be. (See Sarla Varma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (supra)) 9.3 The deceased was aged about 43 years drawing monthly salary of Rs.9056/- from ITI, then 30% prospective income requires to be considered on his actual income. Likewise, considering the age of the deceased, appropriate multiplier would be 14 instead of 13, as applied by the tribunal. 9.4 Lastly 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. 9.5 As far as medical expenses of Rs.91,115/- and transport allowance of Rs.5000/-, which are already granted by the tribunal is unaltered. 9.6 Thus, in view of aforesaid, claimants are entitled to receive compensation as follows: Actual Income Rs.9056/- Future loss of Income Rs.14,83,440/- Consortium Rs.1,93,600/- Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- Transportation Allowance Rs.5000 Medical Bills Rs.91,115/- Total Rs.18,09,455/- 10% Negligence Rs.1,80,945/- Total compensation Rs.16,28,510/- Amount awarded by the tribunal Rs.9.50,968/- Additional compensation Rs.6,77,542/- 10. Conclusion: 10.1 The upshot of aforesaid discussion, reasons and findings is that the driver of Tata Sumo car is found 90% negligent whereas diseased is found 10% negligent for causing accident. Original claimants are now entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.6,77,542/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization, in following proportion: The claimant No.1 i.e. widow of the deceased is entitled to receive 70% out of such additional compensation and balance 30% amount shall be paid to each child of the deceased i.e. claimant Nos. 2 to 4. As the original claimant Nos. 4 and 5 are already died then additional compensation as fixed by us shall be paid to claimant Nos.1 to 3 as stated here in above. 2 to 4. As the original claimant Nos. 4 and 5 are already died then additional compensation as fixed by us shall be paid to claimant Nos.1 to 3 as stated here in above. 10.2 The insurance company shall deposit additional compensation with tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10.3 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. 10.4 The claimants have preferred the appeal claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, against which we are awarding compensation of Rs.6,77,542/-, then claimants are liable to pay additional Court fees on balance amount, which may be adjusted from additional compensation, that may be deposited by the insurance company. 10.6 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.