JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 22.12.2016 passed by the MAC Tribunal (Aux.) Ahmedabad (Rural) in MAC Petition No. 516 of 2006, the appellant-Insurance Co. has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

2. The following facts emerge from the record of the Appeal:

2.1. That the accident took place on 13.2.2006 near Chotila-Sayala crossing of Limbdi-Ahmedabad Highway. It is the case of the respondents-claimants that the deceased Dr. R.J.S. Yadav along with one Mr. R.D. Patel were traveling in Maruti Car from Rajkot to Ahmedabad and when the car reached at the place of occurrence at about 4.00 a.m., the accident occurred. It is the case of the claimants that the car was parked properly and the deceased got down from the car to answer the nature's call and while he was returning, the truck bearing registration No. GJ-3-W-9390 coming from Sayala being driven in rash and negligent manner, ran over the deceased. The record indicates that the deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted to Limbdi General Hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police station at Exh. 41 and the present claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act by the claimants and claimed compensation of Rs. 24 lakhs. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as Principal in the Gujarat Homeopathy Medical College, Savli, Vadodara and had a monthly salary of Rs. 36,805/- per month as per the 6th Pay Commission. The claimants examined the wife of the deceased at Exh. 24 and also examined a witness-Dr. R.D. Patel, who was traveling with the deceased and also relied upon documentary evidence as under:

2.2. The Tribunal, after considering the deposition of the claimants at Exh. 24, FIR at Exh. 41, Panchnama of place of occurrence at Exh. 42, PM Report at Exh. 44, came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and also took note of the fact that the driver, though available, was not examined by the Insurance Co. The Tribunal considered the deposition of the claimants at Exh. 24 and while arriving at just compensation, considered the income-tax returns and the pay slip at Exh. 33 and considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 46,180/- per month. The Tribunal, however, did not consider any prospective income, but after deducting 1/4th, applied multiplier of 9 and awarded a sum of Rs. 37,42,200/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Over and above the same, the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 38,27,200/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of fling of the claim petition till its realization.

2.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Co.

3. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Co. and Mr. Mahendra U. Vora, learned counsel for the original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. However, as the liability is not denied, presence of other respondents is not necessary for deciding the present Appeal.

4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appel