JUDGMENT :

1. The First Appeal No.3836 of 2009 is filed by the appellant – Insurance Company against the quantum and negligence and First Appeal No.4304 of 2006 is filed by the appellants – original claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) dated 23.05.2005 passed in M.A.C.P. No.117 of 2002.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 08.11.2001, Anil Hemantlal Jankhariya was going on his motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-10-L-3768, at about 2.30 p.m., near 8 kilometers away from Dhorivav road, one rickshaw came from opposite direction driven by original opponent no.1 in rash and negligent manner dashed with the motorcycle of said Anil Jankhariya, as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimant had preferred M.A.C.P. No.117 of 2002, which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.05.2005 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- as against her claim of claiming Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. Heard Ms.Sharmishta Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Premal Rachh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error in considering the 20% negligency of the deceased and also not considered the panchnama and the deposition of the driver. She has submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error in deducting only 1/3 rd amount for the personal expenses of the deceased and calculating the amount of compensation on a higher side. She has submitted that the Tribunal has multiplier of 15 which is not just and proper looking to the age of the deceased. She has submitted that the Tribunal has also committed serious error in considering the income of the deceased which is much on a higher side and also in calculating the future loss of income to the family. She has submitted that as per the panchnama and the FIR at Exhibit 67 and 68 and statement of driver at Exhibit 100, at the time of accident, the road was clear and wide enough, the motorcycle came in full speed in wrong side and dashed with right side of the rickshaw and due to the accident, wooden box was damaged and rickshaw fell down in the dig of road. She has submitted that at the time of accident, the motorcycle was in full speed and deceased was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and he himself was sole responsible for the accident. He has submitted that as per the statement of the driver at Exhibit 100, the deceased was only responsible for the accident and tortfeasor is not entitled for any compensation from the opponents. She has submitted that as the deceased was unmarried, learned Tribunal had deducted only 1/3 rd for personal expenses, 1/2 amount should have been deducted as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. She has submitted that the deceased was government servant and serving at Village: Lavadiya as Vidhya Sahayak on temporary basis and he was not permitted to leave the service place without prior approval of the competent authority and his salary was fixed at Rs.2,500/- per month at the time of accident and there was no any assurance for permanent service from the authority. She has further submitted that there was no any documentary evidence regarding extra income, like pay slip, vouchers or bank passbook produced by the deceased or by the witness. She has submitted that considering the deposition of witness No.4 Kantilal at Exhibit 73 and witness No.5 Kishorbhai at Exhibit 91, it appears that deceased was a part time teacher and appointment of Vidhya Sahayak is not transferable job and after completion of two years satisfac