JUDGMENT :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in MACP no. 1302/98, the appellant-insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. Heard Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Paresh M. Darji, learned advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate for respondents no.3 and 4. Though served, no one appears for the respondents no.5 and 6.

3. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the insurance Company had preferred First Appeal no.2138 of 2007, which arose out of the same accident. We find from the record that vide order dated 18.10.2010, when the present appeal was admitted, it was ordered to be heard with First Appeal no.2138 of 2007. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein one of us (R.M. Chhaya, J.) was party. First Appeal no.2138 of 2007 was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 28.3.2019 read with further order which was passed in review application filed by the insurance Company being Misc. Civil Application no.1 of 2019 in First Appeal no.3150 of 2010 dated 27.9.2019. In light of the judgment and order dated 28.3.2019, which has become final as far as the aspect of negligence is concerned, the observations made in the said judgment as far as the negligence is concerned would apply to the present appeal as well.

4. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the appellant very fairly contended that in view of the findings arrived at by the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal no. 2138 of 2007 as far as negligence is concerned, the same, though raised in the memo of appeal, is not pressed.

5. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

5.1 That, the accident took place on 5.6.1998 at about 05:00 p.m. It is the case of the original claimants that on that day, the deceased–Jitendrabhai Kantibhai Patel was going from Nadiad to Vidyanagar with his friend on scooter bearing registration no. GJ- 7 N-8410. When they reached near Village Gutal on National Highway no.8, a truck bearing registration no. WB-23 7195 came from the opposite direction being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the scooter, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and during the treatment, he died in the hospital. It is the case of the original claimants that the deceased was serving as Computer Operator in G.H. Patel College of Engineering and Technology at Vidyanagar and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. It is the case of the original claimants that the deceased was also running Computer class and earning Rs.5,000/- and was also engaged in the agricultural activities and in all, he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby, claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

5.2 The original claimant no.1 – Muktiben was examined at Exh.27. The original claimants also relied upon plethora of documentary evidences. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.21,846/- and after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, considered an amount of Rs.14,564/- per month and an amount of Rs.1,74,758/- per year and applying multiplier of 17, awarded a sum of Rs.29,71,056/- under the head of loss of contribution to the family. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal thus awarded total compensation of Rs.29,91,556/- along with 9% interest per annum with proportionate costs and interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

6. In light of the aforesaid observations, the only aspect which now arise in this appeal is as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribu