M.R Shah, J.:— Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-2), Gandhinagar, at Kalol (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1266/2004 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,71,000/- to the original claimants from the original opponents towards the compensation for the death of deceased daughter of the original claimants with 12% interest thereon from the date of application till realization, the appellant herein-original opponent No. 3-insurer of the Tata Sierra involved in the accident has preferred the present First Appeal No. 3876/2007.

2. That the original claimants have also preferred the cross objections to enhance the amount of compensation.

3. The facts leading to the present First Appeal and the cross objections in nut-shell are as follows:

[2.1] In a vehicular accident which took place on 16.08.1998 at about 3 pm in the afternoon near Limdi, on Limdi-Ahmedabad National Highway No. 8-A between two vehicles viz. Tata Sierra bearing Registration No. GJ-2A-9514 and Truck No. GJ-1X-6573, unfortunately the daughter of the original claimants died. Therefore, the original claimants-parents filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs. 25 lacs towards the compensation under different heads from all the opponents. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that their deceased daughter was working in the company of original opponent No. 4 as an International Internal Sales Engineer on a monthly salary of Rs. 6273/-. She was B.E Civil. She got married initially at very young age and thereafter on account of sad demise of her husband in the year April 1996, she started living with the parents since then and till her death in accident. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that their deceased daughter had dynamic career in her life and therefore, within short period, she reached on high post from the initial post of Secretary in her service with high rise in salary. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that if she would not have died in the vehicular accident, she would have been able to earn monthly salary of more than Rs. 25,000/-.

[2.2] The claim petition was opposed by the insurance company of both the vehicles involved in the accident on number of grounds including on the ground of negligence/contributory negligence as well as the income of the deceased etc. The learned Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.20

[2.3] That the original claimants led the evidence oral as well as documentary. The original claimants examined original claimant No. 1-father of the deceased-Sureshchandra B. Doshi at Exh.24 To prove the income of the deceased the original claimants examined one Maheshkumar Kantilal Patel-the Executive of the employer. The original claimants also produced the documentary evidences at Exhs.54 to 59 to prove the income/salary of the deceased at the time of accident as well as her future prospects and rise in income. The original claimants also produced the FIR at Exh.37; panchnama of place of accident at Exh.38; inquest panchnama of the deceased at Exh.39; report of the deceased at Exh.40; death certificate of the deceased at Exh.41; certificate of her qualification at Exh.42; the school leaving certificate of the deceased at Exh.36 to prove the age of the deceased at the time of accident, charge-sheet against the original opponent No. 1-driver of the motor truck involved in the accident.

[2.4] That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal held the original opponent No. 1-driver of the motor truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80% and the driver of the Tata Sierra involved in the accident (who died in the accident) contributory negligent to the extent of 20%. However, so far as the original claimants are concerned, as the deceased was traveling in Tata Sierra, the learned Tribunal considered the composite negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident.

[2.5] On appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs. 6,273/- per month however, adding approximately 100% towards future rise in income, considered the prospective income at Rs. 12,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal had considered the total loss of dependency/future economic loss at Rs. 8,000/- per month and thereafter applying the multiplier of 16, by impugned judgment and award, has awarded Rs. 15,36,000/- towards loss of dependency benefit. Awarding further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards conventional amount and under the head of loss of estate; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,71,000/- from all the opponents with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization.

[2.6] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant herein-original opponent No. 3-New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-insurer of the motor truck involved in the accident has preferred the present First Appeal.

4. As observed herein above, the original claimants have also preferred the cross objections to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

5. Shri. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the future economic loss/loss of dependency considering the prospective income at Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is submitted by Shri. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding approximately 100% towards the future rise in income. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 25 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the actual income at the time of accident towards future rise in income and thereby ought to have considered the prospective income at Rs. 9,417/- per month. It is submitted that as the claimants were parents, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3 as deducted by the learned Tribunal.

6. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal preferred by the appellant insurance company.

7. No other submissions have been made.

8. Shri. Mehul S. Shah, learned advocate with Shri. Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate for Shri. Yatin Soni, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has tried to oppose the present First Appeal and has also made the submissions in the cross objections filed by the original claimants and in support of the cross objections filed by the original claimants.

9. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in adding approximately 100% towards future rise in income more particularly considering the bright future career of the deceased. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also not committed any error in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that as such the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 16. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and as the deceased was aged 25 years, the multiplier of 18 was required to be applied while awarding the future economic loss. It is further submitted by Shri. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 15,000/- only loss of estate and Rs. 15 000/- towards loss of love and affection.

10. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal preferred by the appellant-insurance company and allow the cross objections preferred by the original claimants.

11. No other submissions have been made.

12. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and we have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record.

13. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the original opponent No. 1-driver of the motor truck involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 80% and the driver of the Tata Sierra in which the deceased was traveling, contributory negligent to the extent of 20%. However, so far as the original claimants are concerned, as the deceased was a passenger and traveling in Tata Sierra, there shall be composite negligence between the insurance company of two vehicles involved in the accident and therefore, the claimants have nothing to do with the same as they can recover the amount from either of the insurance company. Shri. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company therefore, has not made any submissions on the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on contributory negligence.

14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the deceased daughter was a widow and it has come on record that her husband died before two years of accident and since then she was living with her parents 1-oiginal claimants, Shri. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company is also not making any submissions whether the original claimants can be said to be the dependents and whether at their instance the claim petition was maintainable. He has stated at the Bar that he is not making submissions on the aforesaid in the peculiar facts and circumstances narrated herein above.

15. Therefore, what is required to be considered by this Court in the present appeal and the cross objections is whether the learned Tribunal is justified in awarding a total sum of Rs. 15,71,000/- to the original towards compensation for the death of deceased. In other words this Court is required to consider the quantum and amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

16. It is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,36,000/- towards the loss of dependency/future loss of income. From the impugned judgment and award it appears that on appreciation on evidence the learned Tribunal assessed/considered the income/salary of the deceased at Rs. 6,273/- per month. However, thereafter, has added approximately 100% towards future rise in income for the purpose of determining the prospective income. It is required to be noted that the deceased was aged 25 years of age and she was a widow and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) only 50% of the actual income at the time of accident was required to be added towards future rise in income and while determining the prospective income. Accordingly, the prospective income would come to Rs. 9,417/- per month instead of Rs. 12,000/- assessed, determined and considered by the learned Tribunal. As the claimants were the parents and the deceased was a widow living with them, applying the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), when it is held that in the case of a bachelor died in an accident and the claimants are the parents, only 1/2 is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, in the present case also, 1/2 was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 4,708/- per month and after rounding off it will come to Rs. 4,710/-. As the deceased was aged 25 years, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), multiplier of 18 was required to be applied instead of 16 applied by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, considering the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,710/- per month and applying the multiplier of 18, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 10,17,360/- under the head of future loss of income/loss of dependency instead of Rs. 15,36,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, to that extent i.e applying the multiplier of 18, cross objections preferred by the original claimants are required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent as in the cross objections that is the only prayer.

17. However, at the same time, while considering the appeal preferred by the appellant-insurance company and the claimants shall be entitled to just compensation, when the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only towards loss to estate and Rs. 15,000/- only towards loss of love and affection to the claimants, the same deserves to be considered by this Court. As per the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naynaben Wd/o. Bharatkumar Bhalchandra Patel rendered in First Appeal No. 481/2001 with cross objections, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of loss to the estate as well as loss of love and affection to the original claimants (instead of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal). Under he circumstances, the claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 10,72,360/- with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant-insurance company is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.

18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal No. 3876/2007 preferred by the original opponent No. 3-insurer of Tata Sierra No. GJ-2A-9514 is hereby partly allowed and as observed herein above even the cross objections preferred by the original claimants are also allowed in toto. Impugned judgment and award dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-2), Gandhinagar, at Kalol in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1266/2004 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,72,360/- with interest thereon as awarded by the learned Tribunal from all the opponents with proportionate cost. Consequently, First Appeal No. 3876/2007 as well as the cross objections are allowed as observed hereinabove.

19. It goes without saying that in view of partly allowing the present First Appeal as observed herein above and modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal to the extent as observed herein above, the appellant-insurance company shall be entitled to get back any amount deposited by them in excess to the aforesaid together with proportionate cost and interest from the Fixed Deposits lying with the learned Tribunal and now in view of the disposal of the First Appeal, rest of the amount/balance amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimants.