Akil Kureshi, J.

Appellants are the original claimants. They have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.2017.

2. Brief facts are as under:

On 12.12.2008, one Baldevbhai Kuvad was travelling in his maruti van when the vehicle collided with the Truck causing fatal injuries to the driver and bodily injuries to a passenger named Maheshbhai. The claimants are the dependents of deceased Baldevbhai. They are his widow, three children and aged parents. During the pendency of the proceedings, Baldevbhai's father died, however, on the date of the accident he was very much alive.

3. Baldevbhai was employed as Station Operator in GETCO. His salary slips for the months of May 2008 and November 2008 were produced. The Claims Tribunal took his income to be Rs. 12,801/- per month from his salary slip for the month of May 2008 produced at Exh 30. After deducting professional tax of Rs. 150/-, the Tribunal believed his monthly income to be Rs. 12,650/-, deducted 1/3rd for the personal expenditure and applied a multiplier of 14 to arrive at the dependency benefit of Rs. 18,41,840/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- under the conventional head and Rs. 1,38,000/- for his medical expenses and allowed total compensation of Rs. 21,34,840/-.

4. The Tribunal held that the deceased driver himself was negligent to the extent of 50% in causing the accident and therefore slashed down the compensation payable by half and awarded a total of Rs. 10,67,420/- to the claimants.

5. For challenging this award counsel for the appellant raised following contentions:

(i) The Claims Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 50%;

(ii) He submitted that the evidence on record would suggest that the one part of the road, on which the Maruti car was travelling, was closed down for repairs. The truck driver was coming from opposite direction. The Maruti car was on its correct side;

(iii) The Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenditure of the deceased though dependents were six in number;

(iv) The Tribunal wrongly referred to the salary slip Exh 30, it was for the month of May 2008. However, recent salary slip for the month of November 2008, Exh 53 was available which showed that the deceased's monthly income was Rs. 14,552/-;

(v) Counsel contended that looking to the evidence on record, future rise in income should have been 100% and not 30%, as granted by the Tribunal;

(vi) The deceased survived between 11.12.2008 to 21.12.2008. He was under medical treatment. The Tribunal has granted no compensation for pain, shock and suffering.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company opposed the appeal and pointed out that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the conventional heads which is on the higher side.

7. We may first address the question of negligence. The FIR lodged by one Gordhan Govana Patel on the very date of the incident was exhibited. As per this FIR, it was the driver of the Maruti car who was driving the vehicle at a higher speed and collided with the truck at cross-roads. Secondly, this informant claimed to be himself a passenger in the very same vehicle. He had hitchhiked in the car. The panchnama of the scene of incident was also exhibited. It shows that the accident took place at the cross-roads. This panchnama does refer to a part of one of the roads meeting at the cross-roads having been closed for repairs. However, there is no reason to suggest that the accident took place on a junction of the road where part of the road was blocked for maintenance.

8. The claimant had examined one Nathalal Hirjibhai Jhalavadiya at Exh 116. He claimed to be an eyewitness. According to him, he was travelling on his motorcycle when in front of him the accident took place. He gave the version that the accident took place on a section of th