JUDGMENT : (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.) 1. Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned counsel has tendered the copy of the death certificate of appellant No.4 – Sankuben Wd/o. Ganeshbhai Hedubhai Chaudhari issued by the Competent Authority, which is taken on record. Mr.Patel, learned counsel seeks permission to delete appellant No.4. Permission sought for is granted. The appellant No.4 is deleted. 2. The First Appeal No.2459 of 2010 is filed by the appellants – original claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.II), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 518 of 2006 and First Appeal No.2937 of 2010 is filed by the appellant – Insurance Company against the quantum and negligence. 3. Since, the first appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, the same is heard and decided together by this common judgment and order. 4. Brief facts of the present case are that on 23.04.2006 at about 21.00 hours Chaudhari Pethubhai Ganeshbhai and his wife were standing at the road nearby Tavadiya pickup stand on Highway Road, at that time, the driver of truck bearing registration No.RJ-7-G-5336 owned by respondent No.1 came from Unjha and going towards Palanpur in rash and negligent manner and in excess speed and dashed with the circle and, thereafter, dashed with said Pethubhai and his wife, due to which, they both succumbed to the serious injuries. 4.1 The claimants – legal heirs of the deceased had preferred M.A.C.P. No. 518 of 2006 before the Tribunal which came to be allowed and awarded Rs.18,57,192/- towards the compensation against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/-. 5. Heard Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned counsel appearing the for original claimants and Mr.Sunil Parikh, learned counsel for the respondent – National Insurance Company Limited at length. 6. Mr.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error of facts and law in considering 40% negligence on the part of the deceased and not considered the claim with regard to consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error of facts and law in awarding Rs.18,87,192/- towards the compensation. He has submitted that the deceased was serving in the Sub Divisional Office Telecom, E.S.C. and earning Rs.27,579/- per month at the time of death. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error of facts and law in awarding Rs.18,87,192/- towards the compensation. He has submitted that the deceased was serving in the Sub Divisional Office Telecom, E.S.C. and earning Rs.27,579/- per month at the time of death. He has submitted that the claimants have produced the relevant documentary evidence before the Tribunal and examined the witness namely Nilesh Virabhai Shah at Exhibit 48 and salary slip at Exhibit 49. He has submitted that the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and against the well settled principles of law and, therefore, the same may be enhanced with interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the deposit of the aforesaid amount. He has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award the amount of consortium and future loss of income in its true and prospective spirit. He has submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the income of the deceased while awarding the amount of compensation and the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and completely ignored the said decision. He has submitted that so far as the funeral expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/-. He has submitted that the FIR and the charge-sheet came to be filed against the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. He has submitted that the eye witness i.e. P.W.2 has clearly stated that he was standing near the bike and, therefore, the Tribunal has considered 40% contributory negligence without there being any cogent and material evidence and there was no any material which shows that the deceased was responsible for the negligence. He has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. In support of his submissions, Mr.Patel, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Indira Srivastava and others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 763 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para – 13 as under:- “13. The question came for consideration before a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in The Manager, National Insurance Co. Indira Srivastava and others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 763 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para – 13 as under:- “13. The question came for consideration before a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Padmavathy & Ors., CMA No.114 of 2006 decided on 29.1.2007, wherein it was held : "Income tax, Professional tax which are deducted from the salaried person goes to the coffers of the government under specific head and there is no return. Whereas, the General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, L.I.C., Contribution are amounts paid specific heads and the contribution is always repayable to an employee at the time of voluntary retirement, death or for any other reason. Such contribution made by the salaried person are deferred payments and they are savings. The Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and that the deferred payments made to the employee are contractual. Courts have held that there cannot be any deductions in the statutory compensation, if the Legal Representatives are entitled to lumpsum payment under the contractual liability. If the contributions made by the employee which are otherwise savings from the salary are deducted from the gross income and only the net income is taken for computing the dependency compensation, then the Legal Representatives of the victim would lose considerable portion of the income. In view of the settled proposition of law, I am of the view, the Tribunal can make only statutory deductions such as Income tax and professional tax and any other contribution, which is not repayable by the employer, from the salary of the deceased person while determining the monthly income for computing the dependency compensation. Any contribution made by the employee during his life time, form part of the salary and they should be included in the monthly income, while computing the dependency compensation." 7. Mr.Parikh, learned counsel has submitted that the original claimants are not entitled for the amount awarded by the Tribunal and, therefore, the the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, unjust and against the settled principle of law. Mr.Parikh, learned counsel has submitted that the original claimants are not entitled for the amount awarded by the Tribunal and, therefore, the the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, unjust and against the settled principle of law. He has submitted that the claimants have not challenged the negligence and accepted the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the issue with regard to the contributory negligence cannot be raised. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error while considering the contents of the FIR and the panchnama. He has submitted that the deceased was driving the motorcycle and his wife was pillion driver in the middle of the road at the time of accident and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the contributory negligence of 40%. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error of facts and law in awarding compensation of Rs.18,87,192/- after deducing 40% of contributory negligence and in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error while calculating the future prospective rise in the income of the deceased. He has submitted that the Tribunal has also committed an error in considering the multiplier of 13 as the age of the deceased was 48 years. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error while awarding the consortium to the children of the deceased. He has submitted that the appeal filed by the claimants being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed. 7.1 With regard to the res judicata, Mr.Parikh, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S Mylarappa And Ors. reported in (2008) 13 SCC 198 more particularly para 31 which reads thus:- “31. Appellant not only made averments as regards absence of negligence on his part; he made specific allegations against the driver of the truck. The driver of the truck alone would have been competent to depose. In a given case, like the present one, the owner of the truck may not defend the action at all keeping in view the fact that the vehicle was an insured one. The driver of the truck alone would have been competent to depose. In a given case, like the present one, the owner of the truck may not defend the action at all keeping in view the fact that the vehicle was an insured one. There are some decisions of this Court, where even a plea has been raised that the insured company would not be an aggrieved person in such an extent although such a contention has been negatived by this Court.” On the contrary, reading of the said paragraph, the Hon’ble Court has considered and observed such facts in para – 36. Therefore, the facts of the said case and the present case are different. 7.2 Mr.Parikh, learned counsel has also referred to and relied upon another decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwatiben Wd/o. Laxmichand @ Babulal Vardhaji Mali & 3 others Vs. Ramabhai Bhikhabhai Parmar & 3 others in First Appeal No. 5871 of 2008 dated 17.12.2021 and in the case of Dilipsinh Bhaisaheb Jhala Vs. Driver : Juma Ali Sumra & 4 in First Appeal No. 1324 of 2010 with First Appeal No. 5006 of 2010 dated 12.06.2015 8. In the case of Bhagwatiben Wd/o. Laxmichand @ Babulal Vardhaji Mali (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed in para – 12, 13, 14 and 15 as under:- “7. We have perused the original record and proceedings and have extensively gone through the observations made by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar (supra) has observed thus:- “36. The appellant was fully aware of his legal liability. He was involved in the criminal case. He deposed in the claim applications filed by the injured persons who were travelling in the bus. He was fully aware that unless he proves his innocence in regard to the charge of rash and negligent driving, he would be held liable therefor, particularly when he himself had filed the claim petition. It might have been a matter of sharing of liability between him and the driver of the truck. He was aware that his plea that he was not negligent has been negatived. He, for all intent and purport, therefore, was a party to the earlier proceedings. If he intended to get rid of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, he could have preferred an appeal thereagainst. He was aware that his plea that he was not negligent has been negatived. He, for all intent and purport, therefore, was a party to the earlier proceedings. If he intended to get rid of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, he could have preferred an appeal thereagainst. He did not choose to do so.” 8.1 In the case of Dilipsinh Bhaisaheb Jhala (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed in paras – 12, 13, 14 and 15 as under:- “12.In view of this rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the First Appeals with regard to the principle of resjudicata has any application to the facts and whether the Tribunal can be said to have committed any error. 13.Though this contention has been raised referring to the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat reported in 2007 (2) GLH 260 - Pandurang Dagdu Gayakwad and anr. v. Prabhakar Devaji Mora and ors. and also the judgment reported in 2010 (4) GLR – 3231 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nildeep Chamanlal & Ors., the moot question is whether the issue with regard to the negligence is considered based on the same set of evidence. It is required to be mentioned that in MACP No. 763/1992 was filed for same accident qua both the vehicles and the findings have been given by the Tribunal and therefore while deciding the MACP No. 763/1992 from which the present Appeal arises, the Tribulal accepted the statements on the ground of resjudicata. The submissions which have been made regarding the resjudicata referring to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be considered in light of the observations which have been made in the judgment of the coordinate Bench of the High Court reported in 2007 (2) GLH 260 - Pandurang Dagdu Gayakwad and anr. v. Prabhakar Devaji Mora and ors. as well as the judgment referred to by learned Advocate Shri Tushar Sheth reported in 2010 (4) GLH 3231 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nildeep Chamanlal & Ors. However, this judgment reported in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nildeep Chamanlal & Ors. (supra) has a reference to the judgment in case of privy counsel and subsequent judgments including the judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 551 - Ishwardas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Ltd. v. Nildeep Chamanlal & Ors. However, this judgment reported in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nildeep Chamanlal & Ors. (supra) has a reference to the judgment in case of privy counsel and subsequent judgments including the judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 551 - Ishwardas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. It has been emphasized that all that is necessary is that the issue should be between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claimed. Further, once the questions at the issue are the same, and the same material has lead to the decision in earlier proceeding, would certainly be covered as a resjudicata or had on an an alogous principles. Therefore, even if strictly speaking, it may not be a resjudicata nevertheless it would be a decision on the same set of facts with regard to the same accident or the incident and therefore the Tribunal was justified in accepting the findings given earlier by the Tribunal. 14.A useful reference can be also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008 (13) SCC 198 – Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S.Mylarappa and ors. There also referring to the background of the facts, though it is not focused on the resjudicata but it has considered the similar circumstances while deciding about the aspect of opportunity of hearing and therefore it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error while finding the conclusion with regard to the accident on the aspect of negligence in the present case. 15.That takes us to the another aspect with regard to the negligence as the apportionment has been made by the Tribunal based on the evidence which would not call for any interference and the negligence in the ratio of 70:30 between the offending Truck and the Jeep does not call for any interference. 9. The facts of the present case and the facts of the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench of this Court are completely different. In the present case, the offending vehicle driven by the owner-cum-driver, who in fact at the time of accident after causing death of all the three persons fled away from the place of occurrence. 9. The facts of the present case and the facts of the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench of this Court are completely different. In the present case, the offending vehicle driven by the owner-cum-driver, who in fact at the time of accident after causing death of all the three persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Though the said driver was served with the notice of the claim petition, however, he neither appeared before the Tribunal nor opposed the claim petition by filing any written written statement nor challenged the criminal proceedings lodged against him. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Tribunal has committed serious error of facts and law in holding 40% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In fact, the Tribunal has over looked the evidence of Bachanbhai Chaudhary – eye witness, who specifically deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased along with his wife standing near parked motorcycle on the road side, however, this fact was completely ignored by the Tribunal. Therefore, the submission made by Mr.Parikh, learned counsel is not acceptable and the same is hereby declined. 10. On perusal of the record and proceedings of the case, the FIR, panchnama and the charge-sheet, it is crystal clear that the deceased was not plying the motorcycle at the time of accident, but he along with his wife was standing near the motorcycle near cross road at Tavadiya on Unjha – Palanpur Highway, in fact, the offending vehicle was coming from the opposite direction. The Bachanbhai Veljibhai Chaudhari in uncertain term stated that at about 9.00 p.m. on 23.04.2006, while he was standing near Paan Parlor, one truck coming from the opposite direction in excess speed and the driver of the truck lost the control over the steering of the truck dashed with the circle of the cross road and, thereafter, it was dashed with the divider and then one lady standing near the place and after the truck went further dashed with the deceased and his wife. He has specifically stated that the deceased and his wife were standing after parking their motorcycle on the road. In the cross-examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased was plying motorcycle and his wife was sitting as a pillion rider on motorcycle. He stick to his version that the deceased was sitting on motorcycle which was in parking condition. In the cross-examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased was plying motorcycle and his wife was sitting as a pillion rider on motorcycle. He stick to his version that the deceased was sitting on motorcycle which was in parking condition. The Tribunal has, without considering such aspect, come to the conclusion that the deceased was also negligent and held liable 40% though there was no evidence put-forth by the Insurance Company nor examined the driver with regard to the negligence. In spite of this fact, the Tribunal has committed an error while holding liable the deceased 40% negligent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 11. Mr.Parikh, learned counsel has submitted that since the original claimants have accepted the award passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition, they cannot raise negligence in the present appeal. In fact, when the Tribunal has, without considering the facts on record, committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and award, the Court can certainly look into the matter and consider the said aspect as it is first appeal, the Court can re-appreciate and re-look the evidence recorded by the Tribunal. When there is specific evidence brought on record by the claimants and in support of their say, they have examined the independent witness and his evidence cannot be brushed aside as he is the same community. Therefore, the contention of Mr.Parikh, learned counsel is held to be negatived as there was completely misread and completely erroneous finding recorded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award. It is pure question of law and it can be gone into at the appeal stage and, therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is held to be negatived. So far as the aspect of negligence and quantum is concerned, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. So far as the aspect of negligence and quantum is concerned, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of death and as per the deposition of the said witness, the deceased could have worked for 14 years as per his service record and said witness has specifically stated that the birth date of the deceased mentioned in the service record was of 01.06.1958 and at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 48 years and age of retirement was 62 years and he could have worked further 14 years and he could reach to the basic pay of Rs.25,100/- and appropriate accumulation of other salary raise he could have alive. 12. The contention with regard to the contributory negligence raised by Mr.Parikh, learned counsel, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gorjibhai Ghemabhai Ghod & Others reported in 2024 Lawsuit (Guj) 2182 in which the Division Bench of this Court has dealt with said aspect by referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed, Mohamamd Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg and Ors . reported in A.I.R. (30) 1943 Privy Council 115 wherein in para – 8 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that In order that a decision should operate as res judicata between co-defendants three conditions must exist : (1) There must be a conflict of interest between those co-defendants, (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (3) the question between the co-defendants must have been finally decided. 13. In view of the aforesaid aspect, the contention raised by Mr.Parikh, learned counsel is hereby declined. The decisions relied upon by Mr.Parikh, learned counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. In the case of Kumari Kiran through her Father Harinarayan Vs. Sajjan Singh and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 339 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para – 13 as under:- “13. The decisions relied upon by Mr.Parikh, learned counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. In the case of Kumari Kiran through her Father Harinarayan Vs. Sajjan Singh and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 339 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para – 13 as under:- “13. The Tribunal has calculated the future loss of income by taking the notional income of each the appellant-minor as Rs.15,000/- per annum. We are of the considered view that a child's notional income cannot be ascertained as per the figure given for a non-earning individuals in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . As the Tribunal and the High Court have not followed the principles laid down by this Court in the above case by awarding loss of future income due to permanent disability, therefore, we set aside the same. Further, reiterating the same principles as held in Master Mallikarjun's case (supra), we award Rs.1,00,000/- each towards shock, pain and suffering (non-pecuniary head) in place of loss of future income due to permanent disability. Further, in Master Mallikarjun case (supra) with respect to compensation for permanent disability this Court held thus:- "12. Though, it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick…" Hence, this Court in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in the above case (supra), and after examining the facts, evidence on record and circumstances of the case on hand, we deem it fit and proper to award Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability of the appellant-minors viz. Kumari Kiran and Master Sachin, since they have suffered 30% and 20% permanent disability respectively, due to the shortening of their right leg by one inch after the injuries sustained in the motor accident. Kumari Kiran and Master Sachin, since they have suffered 30% and 20% permanent disability respectively, due to the shortening of their right leg by one inch after the injuries sustained in the motor accident. Further, upon considering the age of appellant-minors, they have a long journey ahead of them in their lives, during which they along with their parents will have to endure an immeasurable amount of agony and uncertain medical expenses due to this motor-vehicle accident. Thus, based on the principles laid down in the above case, we award Rs.25,000/- each towards agony to parents and Rs.25,000/- each towards future medical expenses.” 15. It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and othes Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 . It is also pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para – 29 as under:- “29. On the matter of extent of contribution to the accident, it is held by the Tribunal that the appellants/claimants herein should have taken utmost care while moving on the highway. Looking at the spot of the accident, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants/claimants were moving on the middle of the road which led to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that though the tractor has been charge sheeted under sections 279 and 338 of IPC, but given the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. The High Court without assigning any reason concurred with the findings of the Tribunal with respect to contributory negligence. We find it pertinent to observe that both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding the appellants/ claimants in these appeals liable for contributory negligence. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. The Tribunal arrived at the above conclusion only on the basis of the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the contribution of the appellants/claimants in the accident is not proved by the respondents by producing evidence and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence, which has been upheld by the High Court, is set aside.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavathi Vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation, reported in 2025 INSC 293 has held that the contributory negligence cannot be presumed without sufficient evidence, just compensation should consider last drawn salary applicable future prospective and correct multiplier. 17. It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajani Sahoo and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 599 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 17.1 In the case of Rajani Sahoo (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para – 11 as under:- “11. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.” 17.2 In the case of Mangla Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para – 27 as under:- “27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the First Appeal filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST-4701 was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST-4701 was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming respondent No.2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes (supra), noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet against respondent No.2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.” 18. Considering the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation considering the income of the original claimant (deceased) at Rs.19,971/- plus 30% rise and appeal filed by the claimants requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award requires to be substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation and, therefore, the compensation is enhanced under the following heads:- Actual Income Rs.19,971/- Prospective Income (30% rise) Rs. 5,991/- Rs.25,962.00 Less :Personal expenses (Rs.25,961 x 1/4th) Rs.6,490.00 Rs.19,472.00 Future Loss (Rs.19,472 x 12 x 13) Rs.30,37,632.00 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000.00 Funeral expenses Rs.18,000.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.48,500 x 3) Rs.1,35,500.00 Total amount Rs.32,09,132.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.18,87,192.00 Additional amount Rs.13,21,940.00 Accordingly a sum of Rs.13,21,940/- as additional compensation requires to be awarded towards future loss of income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is awarded in addition to Rs.18,87,192/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.13,21,940 /- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till its realization. 19. However, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.13,21,940 /- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of application till its realization. 19. For the foregoing reasons, First Appeal No. 2459 of 2010 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 04.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby modified and in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.13,21,940/- as additional amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is awarded which shall be from the date of filing claim petition till its realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit additional amount of compensation with 7.5% interest as early as possible within an outer limit of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After deposit of the additional amount of compensation, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants through RTGS, after proper verification. The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned counsel for the claimants to the Nazir Department of the Court concerned. The claimants are directed to pay deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced amount within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The apportionment and order for disbursement as made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the order shall hold good. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of hearing the appeal before this Court, if any, be remitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. First Appeal No.2937 of 2010 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.