JUDGMENT : 1. The First Appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2006 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.225 of 2002. While the Cross Objection No.164 of 2009 is by the claimants praying for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the F.I.R. and panchnama does not reflect the vehicle number involved in the accident, and suddenly one witness, Paras Shukla, claimed to be the eye witness to the incident, had informed the D.S.P. of the incident only on 03.12.2001, for the F.I.R., which had been filed on 26.10.2001. Mr. Thakkar, thus, stated that the witness cannot be believed. 2.1 Advocate Mr. Thakkar, stated that in the cross examination the witness has admitted that he has read about the incident in the newspaper on the next day, and the witness has not stated that as to how he came to know about the address of the family of the deceased, and he had not informed about the accident to any of the employee in his department of having noted the vehicle number, so as alleged to be involved in the incident. Mr. Thakkar submitted that the witness has not even informed the police station about his knowledge of the vehicle. 2.2 Advocate Mr. Thakkar further stated that the insurance company has also challenged the compensation amount, as the Tribunal ought not to have considered the gross salary of the deceased. 2.3 Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that had the eye witness be genuine, he would have immediately informed the people who had gathered there about the vehicle number, and could have inquired from the persons about the deceased and his family members to provide them the vehicle number. Mr. Thakkar further stated that as per deposition, he had known about the accident on the very next day by reading the newspaper; in spite of that he failed to disclose the vehicle number to the concerned police station, and had also not informed his co-employees. 3. While, countering the argument and in context of the Cross Objection, Advocate Mr. Mr. Thakkar further stated that as per deposition, he had known about the accident on the very next day by reading the newspaper; in spite of that he failed to disclose the vehicle number to the concerned police station, and had also not informed his co-employees. 3. While, countering the argument and in context of the Cross Objection, Advocate Mr. Amit N.Patel submitted that the deceased was a pedestrian, who was walking on the side of the road, and as per the eye witness, he had seen the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti van, who dashed the deceased and had run away from the place. Mr. Patel, submitted that as per the evidence eye witness had followed the involved vehicle and had run up to sector-23 behind the vehicle to stop it, but he failed to do so, and during that process, he had noted number of the vehicle as GJ-1-BK-2426. 3.1 Advocate Mr. Patel stated that driver and owner of the vehicle had been made party respondents, who had filed their written statement at Exh.20, and they had not denied the accident, but had pleaded to prove the age, income and injuries by documentary evidence. Mr. Patel stated that the driver of the involved vehicle was not examined and nothing is on record to disbelieve the eye witness, who had followed the vehicle. 4. The facts, as could be known from the impugned judgment are that the deceased was going along with family members from their house and when they reached near “Gh” Road, Sector No.7, it is stated that, Maruti van came in full speed, rashly and negligently driven by opponent no.1 belonging to opponent no.2, dashed deceased – Natverlal from behind, who was thrown on the road and received grievous injuries, who died at the place of accident. 4.1 The opponent no.1 - driver and owner had filed reply at Exh.20 and the insurance company’s reply was at Exh.22, where the insurance company had contended that the applicant is required to prove the negligence of the driver of the Maruti van, grievous injuries on head, face, right eye, fracture of jaw and fracture of head and multiple injuries and even the death of Natverlal by reliable and trustworthy documentary evidence. 4.2 The evidence of the widow of deceased was recorded at Exh.29. 4.2 The evidence of the widow of deceased was recorded at Exh.29. She had stated that the husband met with an accident on 25.10.2001 at about 9.30 to 18.00 p.m. on “Gh” road, sector Nos.6-7 at Gandhinagar. Paras Shukla was examined at Exh.43, who stated to be eye witness to the occurrence of the accident, who had deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti van, the alleged incident had occurred, and thereafter the driver had run away; so he tried to stop Maruti van, but as it was in full speed, he could not stop the vehicle, but had noted the number of Maruti van. 4.3 The claimants had produced vide list the complaint at Exh.38, panchnama at Exh.39, inquest panchnama at Exh.40 and P.M. report at Exh.42. The Tribunal has noted that the cause of death is shock due to severe head injuries. In FIR, there is no mention of registration number of the vehicle. The FIR shows it as some unknown vehicle, and after a period of about two months when a letter has been written to D.S.P., the vehicle was found to be of opponent no.2, driven by opponent no.1. 5. It has been contended by Advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar that such a delay in bringing the registration number of the vehicle itself creates doubt, and the factum of writing a letter to D.S.P. rather than informing directly to the nearest police station at the time of accident, would cast a doubt on the evidence of the claimants, who themselves had to remove this suspicion, and such burden cannot be laid down on the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal has noted that the eye witness was examined during the course of trial at Exh.43. The witness – Paras Shukla had given the whole account of the incident and the fact that he had run behind the Maruti van with an intention to stop the vehicle. He had gone up to Sector-23 behind the vehicle, but since the vehicle was in full speed, he only could note the registration number as GJ-1-BK-2426. The accident is proved by way of FIR and panchnama. The details about the vehicle could be brought on record only after the letter to D.S.P. by the eye witness Paras Shukla. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the relation of the witness with that of the claimants could not be proved. The accident is proved by way of FIR and panchnama. The details about the vehicle could be brought on record only after the letter to D.S.P. by the eye witness Paras Shukla. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the relation of the witness with that of the claimants could not be proved. The deceased as well as witness both are from Gandhinagar. The witness had stated that he was not knowing the deceased or his family members earlier and at the time of the accident too, he could not know about his whereabouts. He is serving in old Sachivalaya, while the deceased was serving in new sachivalaya and their departments are totally different. He had admitted the suggestion that in case of such accident, he was required to inform the police and had also stated that he had not informed the police after the incident, nor had informed about the people, who had gathered at the place of incident about the fact that he had followed the vehicle and that he had seen the accident with his own eyes. 6.1 The claimants had stated about the accident supported by the FIR and the panchnama. The claimants had also examined Paras Shukla as an eye witness to the incident. While opponent nos.1 and 2 have not challenged the deposition of the eye witness, though they had filed their written statement, nor has the insurance company examined the driver as the witness, to contradict the say of the claimants or to prove the eye witness as false. In absence of any contradictory evidence or countering evidence from the side of the insurance company, and when on investigation the charge sheet had been filed against the driver of the involved vehicle, there is no reason to doubt the involvement of the vehicle. Hence, on that count, the appeal of the insurance company would not be sustainable. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel stated that the Tribunal has considered the income on the basis of the evidence proved on record, where the widow of the deceased had stated in her evidence that her husband was earning Rs.16,480/- as an accountant in Consumer Affairs Activities, New Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. The salary certificate was produced at Exh.27/3, where the amount in the salary slip was noted to be more than Rs.16,000/-. The salary certificate was produced at Exh.27/3, where the amount in the salary slip was noted to be more than Rs.16,000/-. The learned Tribunal has deducted the amount towards the allowances and has considered only Rs.14,500/- as net income of the deceased. 7.1 Perusal of the judgment, clarifies that the learned Tribunal has considered the amount of Rs.9,900 + Rs.4,455 and in total has taken the amount of Rs.14,500/-, as income per month. The age of the deceased was 53 years, hence, being in a government permanent job, as per judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 , he would be entitled for 15% rise as prospective income, hence, accordingly, the income require to be assessed would be Rs.16,675/-. 7.2 Considering the claimants as five in number, the amount deducted for personal expense would be 1/4th, hence, monthly dependency loss would come to Rs.12,506/- (16,675 - 4,169). Taking that annually and applying multiplier of 11, the dependency loss would come to Rs.16,50,792/- (12,506 x 12 x 11). 7.3 The consortium loss is required to be granted to the claimants as per Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) SCC 130 [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ]. The applicant no.1 is a widow, while the applicant no.3 was studying at the time of father’s death, and aged mother of the deceased would be entitled for the consortium loss of Rs.40,000/- per head. Hence, under the head of consortium loss, Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000 x 3) is granted. 7.4 Following the judgment of Pranay Sethi and Ors. (supra), under the heads of loss to estate and funeral expense, Rs.15,000/- each is granted. 8. In view of the above, compensation under different heads would be: Heads Tribunal has granted Amount Loss of Dependency Rs. 11,59,800/- Rs.16,50,792/- Consortium Loss Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Loss of Estate ---- Rs. 15,000/- Expectation of life Rs. 10,000/- ------ Total Rs. 11,84,800/- Rs.18,00,792/- 9. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation as Rs.11,84,800/-. The claimants would be entitled to get Rs.6,15,992/- (18,00,792 – 11,84,800) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%. 10. In the result, the First Appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the Cross Objection is partly allowed. 15,000/- Expectation of life Rs. 10,000/- ------ Total Rs. 11,84,800/- Rs.18,00,792/- 9. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation as Rs.11,84,800/-. The claimants would be entitled to get Rs.6,15,992/- (18,00,792 – 11,84,800) as enhanced compensation at the rate of 7.5%. 10. In the result, the First Appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the Cross Objection is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2006 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court No.10, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.225 of 2002, stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 11. The enhanced amount be deposited before the concerned Tribunal within Eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The total amount be paid to the claimants by way of cheque or NEFT on verification of identity. In case of death of any of the claimant, the amount be appropriated in the share of other claimants. The Court fees stamp be recovered on the enhanced amount. 11.1 Record and Proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith, if received. 11.2 Office to keep copy of this judgment in Cross Objection No.164 of 2009.