S.H. Vora, J.

Learned advocate for the appellant seeks permission to delete respondent No.3 in First Appeal No.2138 of 2007 and respondent No.6 in First Appeal No.3150 of 2010. Permission is granted.

2. Present First Appeal No.2138 of 2007 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is at the instance of appellant - original opponent No.2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Cross Objection No.79 of 2008 under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of original claimants of MACP No.1348 of 1998 whereby the parents of the deceased - Rajeshbhai Paul Saini have preferred Cross Objection against the judgment and award dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned MACT (Auxi.), F.T. Court No.3, Kheda at Nadiad, thereby allowing the claim petition in part and awarded sum of Rs.13,97,000/- against original opponents along with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the amount is deposited with the Tribunal. Similarly, the appellant of First Appeal No.3150 of 2010 has challenged the award passed by the learned MACT (Main), Kheda at Nadiad thereby allowing the claim petition in part and awarded sum of Rs.29,91,156/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the application till realization and cost. It is required to be noted here that claimant Nos.3 and 4 of MACP No.1302 of 1998 have preferred Cross Objection No.223 of 2011 in First Appeal No.3150 of 2010, but vide order dated 07.12.2011, it appears that the said claimants have not pressed the Cross Objection and accordingly, the Cross Objection came to be disposed of.

3. Briefly stated, the claimants are legal heirs and representative of deceased Rajeshbhai Saini and Jitendrabhai. At the relevant time, on 05.06.1998, deceased Jitendrabhai was pillion rider, whereas, deceased Rajesbhai was driving scooter bearing registration No.GJ-7N-8410, were proceeding from Nadiad to Vidhyanagar and near Village Gutal, dashed with truck bearing registration No.WB-23-7195 and both the deceased person suffered injuries and succumbed to death.

4. Legal heirs and representative of both the deceased persons preferred the petitions for compensation under section 166 of the Act inter-alia claiming compensation amount from the insured and insurer of the offending truck bearing registration No.WB-23- 7195. Legal heirs and representative of deceased Rajeshbhai claimed sum of Rs.31 lakhs, whereas, legal heirs and representatives of deceased Jitendrabhai claimed compensation of Rs.50 lakhs from the original opponents jointly and severally.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar appearing for the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, learned advocate Mr. H.M.Parikh appearing for the original claimants of MACP No.1348 of 1998 and learned advocate Mr. Paresh Darji appearing for original claimants of MACP No.1302 of 1998.

6. The learned Tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence on record awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.13,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and cost and sum of Rs.29,91,556/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and cost to the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Rajeshbhai and Jitendrabhai respectively.

7. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties took us through the record and proceedings of learned Tribunal and on re-appreciation of evidence, we have noticed that the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/3rd personal expenses of deceased Rajeshbhai and similarly, considering the age of deceased Rajeshbhai being 26 years, the learned Tribunal committed error in applying 8 multiplier. It is a matter of fact that the deceased Rajeshbhai was unmarried at the relevant time of accident.

8. Before quantum part of award is considered, it is necessary to consider the appeal on the issue of negligency aspect. It is the case of the appellant - Insurance Company that deceased Rajeshbh