JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. All these appeals have been heard and are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of facts and law have arisen. 2. An accident involving Maruti Car No.HP-01-0665 and Truck No.HP 51A-6099 had taken place on 26.03.2009 at about 9:00 AM at place named Nichli Siunan in District Kangra. It was a collision between both the vehicles. Maruti Car No.HP-01-0665 was being driven by person named James with his two minor sons, namely, Master Sahil and Master Aman as occupants. In addition, two more persons named Virender and Anil were also travelling in car at the time of accident. 3. The truck was owned by Chaman Lal Sharma (for short the “owner/insured”) and driven by Dev Raj (for short the “driver”) at the time of accident. 4. As the result of injuries, suffered in the accident, James and Master Aman died. Injuries were suffered by remaining occupants also. 5. Following four separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”). (i) MAC Petition No.54-D/II/2009 was filed by Renu, wife of James, for compensation on account of death of James. (ii) Another petition, being MAC Petition No.52- D/II/2009, was filed by Renu for compensation on account of death of Master Aman. (iii) MAC Petition No.53-D/II/2009 was filed by Anil Kumar for compensation on account of injuries and disablement suffered by him. (iv) MAC Petition No.51-D/II/2009 was filed by Master Sahil for compensation on account of injuries and disablement suffered by him. 6. In all the above claim petitions, the owner/insured, driver and insurer of truck were impleaded as respondents No.1 to 3, respectively. The cause of action was attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck. It was alleged that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and as result thereof had hit the car with such force that the car was dragged back to a distance of approximately 20-25 meters. 7. The cause of action was attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck. It was alleged that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and as result thereof had hit the car with such force that the car was dragged back to a distance of approximately 20-25 meters. 7. The respondents in the claim petitions had not only denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving levelled against the driver, as the counter they had made a specific allegation that the driver of car i.e. James was driving the car in rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and as a result thereof the accident had taken place. 8. The FIR of the incident was recorded on the same day at the instance of Virender Kumar, one of the occupants of the car. In the said FIR also, the allegation of rash and negligent driving was levelled against the driver of the truck. However, after investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case filed an untraced report on the hypothesis that the driver of truck was not found negligent and the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of driver of the car named James. The untraced report had allegedly been accepted by the concerned Court also. 9. Learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, held the cause of accident to be the rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck. Accordingly, the claimants in all the petitions were held entitled to compensation and the respondents were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. The insurer (appellant in all these appeals)-Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. has been directed to indemnify the insured. 10. Learned Tribunal has also negated the claim of the insurer that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 12. Learned counsel for the insurer/appellants has raised the following contentions: (a) The findings that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck are perverse; (b) Insurer had duly proved that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; and (c) the quantum of compensation assessed by learned Tribunal was excessive. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the insurer/appellant would contend that the result of investigation in FIR had vindicated the stand of insurer. It had been proved that driver of truck was not responsible for the accident. Reliance was placed on the statement of ASI Hem Raj, examined as witness of the respondents in all the claim petitions, who had investigated the case. As per the version of this witness, he had found the cause of accident to be rash and negligent driving of driver of car. He had based the investigation report on the basis of statements of the witnesses, site inspection report and other evidence collected during the investigation. He had deposed that the untraced report was submitted because the driver of car had died and such report had been accepted by the concerned Court. 14. The insurer/appellant has further sought corroboration from the statements of witnesses, namely, Uttam Singh, Hukam, Chand and Dev Raj, according to whom also, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the car. Dev Raj is the driver of the truck. Uttam Singh and Hukam Chand had claimed themselves to be the residents of area near to the place of accident. According to them, though, they were not the eye witnesses, yet they had reached the spot within five minutes on hearing a loud noise. From the attending circumstances, they had formed an opinion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the car. 15. Learned counsel for the insurer/appellant has also placed strong reliance on the site map prepared by the Investigating Officer of the case, according to which, the car was depicted to have hit the truck on the wrong side of the road. 16. Learned Tribunal had discarded and disbelieved the defence version. The opinion formed by the Investigating Officer was discredited for the reason that he had not examined Virender Kumar, the author of FIR, before preparing the final report. Learned Tribunal further found that even the learned Magistrate, who had accepted the untraced report, had not heard the complainant before passing the order. 17. In addition, learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of Virender Kumar recorded as the witness of claimants. Learned Tribunal further found that even the learned Magistrate, who had accepted the untraced report, had not heard the complainant before passing the order. 17. In addition, learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of Virender Kumar recorded as the witness of claimants. This witness had categorically deposed that he was an occupant of the car at the time of accident and the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck. As per the version of this witness, the impact of collision between the vehicles was such that the car was dragged to a distance of approximately 20-25 meters. 18. Having gone through the evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Not only the version of Virender Kumar had remained un- shattered, the same was duly corroborated by the statement of claimant Anil Kumar while appearing as a witness in MAC Petition No.53-D/11/2009. He also had made the deposition identical to the one made by Virender Kumar. Despite cross-examination, nothing favourable could be elicited by the respondents in claim petitions. 19. It was not the case of the respondents in the claim petitions that Virender Kumar and Anil Kumar were not the occupants of the car. Rather, said fact was admitted by them. It being so, Virender Kumar and Anil Kumar, indisputably, were the eye witnesses of the accident. 20. On the other hand, the witnesses of the respondents Uttam Singh and Hukam Chand admittedly had not seen the accident with their own eyes. They had formed an opinion on the basis of circumstances as existed on the spot. The fact that the car was dragged to a distance of 20-25 meters after the accident ought not to be in the knowledge of these witnesses. It is also not stated by RWs Uttam Singh and Hukam Chand that they had occasion to interact with any of the occupants of the car, meaning thereby that they had unilateral version of the truck driver before them. In view of the fact that the car was dragged to a considerable distance, these witnesses could not have perceived the actual sequence of events. 21. Similarly, there was no explanation from the Investigation Officer of the case as to why he omitted to examine complainant Virender Kumar before forming his final opinion. In view of the fact that the car was dragged to a considerable distance, these witnesses could not have perceived the actual sequence of events. 21. Similarly, there was no explanation from the Investigation Officer of the case as to why he omitted to examine complainant Virender Kumar before forming his final opinion. Another fact that cannot be ignored is that the Investigating Officer had placed reliance on the statements of the witnesses, including the aforesaid Uttam Singh and Hukam Chand. The statement of Anil Kumar (occupant of the car) was also purportedly recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, Anil Kumar had given a totally different version while appearing as own witness in MAC Petition No.53-D/11/2009. None of the respondents while cross-examining Anil Kumar had confronted him with his statement purportedly recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 22. As regards the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, again much reliance cannot be placed on the document for the reason, firstly that the opinion formed by Investigating Officer could not be given much credence for the reasons noticed hereinabove and secondly, the dragging of the car, after the accident, to a considerable distance might have caused wrong assessment of the factual scenario. Noticeably, the Investigating Officer of the case had not endorsed the theory regarding dragging of car as result of collision between the vehicles. 23. Thus, I do not find any material to interfere with the findings returned by learned Tribunal with respect to cause of accident. 24. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the absence of valid and effective driving licence with the driver of truck at the time of accident. He has placed reliance on the statement of a witness i.e. the official from the R&LA, Amb, District Una, who had deposed that the driving licence was issued in favour of Dev Raj, s/o Jagat Ram by the Licensing Authority, Amb on 14.03.2005, which was valid for a period of 3 years i.e. up to 13.03.2008. He had further stated that the driving licence of Dev Raj had remained without renewal from 2008 to 2013 and the same was renewed on 24.05.2013 for another period of 3 years till 23.05.2016. The witness had also proved the record of renewal as Ext.RW-1/A and extract of Renewal Register as Ext. RW-1/B. 25. He had further stated that the driving licence of Dev Raj had remained without renewal from 2008 to 2013 and the same was renewed on 24.05.2013 for another period of 3 years till 23.05.2016. The witness had also proved the record of renewal as Ext.RW-1/A and extract of Renewal Register as Ext. RW-1/B. 25. Learned Tribunal has not found the statement of said witness as sufficient to hold that the driver of the truck was not holding a licence at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal placed reliance on copy of driving licence of driver of the truck Ext RW-5/A, in which the licence was shown to be effective w.e.f. 14.03.2008 for LMVCAB and PSVBUS. 26. As per the statement of official of R&LA, Amb, there was a gap between 2008 and 2013 in the renewal of the licence of driver of the truck. This witness had also stated that in 2013, the driving licence of Dev Raj was renewed on receipt of fee of Rs.400/-. He did not make any mention about payment of penalty, if any, by Dev Raj for renewal of licence after a gap of 5 years. Moreover, the Driving Licence Ext. RW-5/A was not shown to this witness so as to seek his clarification on the contents of the licence showing it valid for driving PSVBUS w.e.f. 14.03.2008. His version that Dev Raj had not got renewed the licence from R&LA Amb between 2008 and 2013 or had not sought NOC for getting renewal from any other agency cannot be given much weight for the simple reason that this witness had not produced all the renewal registers for the relevant period for inspection of the Court. 27. Chaman Lal the owner of the truck has also been examined as a witness of the respondents. His statement by way of examination-in-chief was categoric that the driver Dev Raj had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. This witness had further stated that while engaging the services of Dev Raj he had checked his licence and taken his driving test. 28. In the light of the evidence on record, the findings of learned Tribunal again cannot be faulted. This witness had further stated that while engaging the services of Dev Raj he had checked his licence and taken his driving test. 28. In the light of the evidence on record, the findings of learned Tribunal again cannot be faulted. The insurer cannot be said to have discharged its burden by producing merely a witness from the Registration and Licensing Authority, Amb more particularly when the endorsement made on driving license Ext RW-5/A was neither seen nor explained by the official of the office of R&LA Amb, District Una and further the owner of the truck had also claimed to have checked the driving license and driving skills of the driver before employing him. 29. As regards the quantum of compensation, the facts of individual cases will have to be looked into. 30. MAC Petition No.54-D/11/2009 30.1 In MAC Petition No.54-D/11/2009 the claim of compensation was on account of death of James. It was proved that the deceased James was employed as “Safai Karamchari” with the Cantonment Board, Yol, District Kangra. His last drawn salary was duly proved from the records of the Cantonment Board. On such basis, learned Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd of monthly salary of deceased towards his personal expenses. 30.2 Learned counsel for the insurer has pointed out that there was only one claimant i.e. the wife of deceased, who had filed the claim petition and thus, the deduction should have been ½ instead of 1/3rd. 30.3 It is not in dispute that besides the wife of deceased James, he was survived by a minor son named Master Sahil. Thus, he was also the legal heir and representative of the deceased. Master Sahil being minor could not have been ignored for grant of compensation on account of death of his father. In paragraph-22 of the claim petition filed for compensation on account of death of James, it has been averred as under: Any other information which be helpful and necessary in the disposal of the petition. The petitioners have been rendered destitute completely as a result of the sad and untimely demise due to the death of sole earning member of their family and the minor son of the deceased has lost love and affection due to the sudden demise of their father. The petitioners have been rendered destitute completely as a result of the sad and untimely demise due to the death of sole earning member of their family and the minor son of the deceased has lost love and affection due to the sudden demise of their father. 30.4 Thus, it is revealed that though, the name of minor Master Sahil was omitted in the array of claimants, but the claim was made for his benefit also. Even otherwise, Master Sahil being minor could not have been ignored to the prejudice of his interest. In such circumstances since, there were two surviving dependents of the deceased James, the deduction of 1/ 3rd of the monthly salary was rightly made. 30.5 Thereafter, the learned Tribunal has made an addition of 30% towards loss of future prospects while arriving at the amount of monthly dependency, which again cannot be faulted with being in accordance with settled legal position. The age of deceased was proved to be 42 years. Thus, the loss of dependency has rightly been assessed in MAC Petition No.54-D/11/2009. 30.6 Further, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- on the account of funeral charges and Rs.10,000/- as transportation charges to claimant Renu. As already held, the deceased James had left behind two dependents i.e. wife and minor son. As per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130 , both the dependents were entitled to Rs.40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium. Similarly, in terms of constitutional Bench judgment in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the amount of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads Loss of estate and funeral charges was permissible. 30.7 In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to increase at the rate of 10% after every 3 years in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) on the amount awarded under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral charges. Such enhancement comes out to Rs.22,000/-. 30.8 Thus, the claimants in MAC Petition No.54-D/11/2009 are held entitled to the following compensation: Loss of dependency Rs.1,21,260 x 13= 15,76,380/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 2= Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral charges Rs.15,000/- Enhancement at the rate of 10% after three years Rs.22,000/- Total Rs.17,08,380/- 31. Such enhancement comes out to Rs.22,000/-. 30.8 Thus, the claimants in MAC Petition No.54-D/11/2009 are held entitled to the following compensation: Loss of dependency Rs.1,21,260 x 13= 15,76,380/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 2= Rs.80,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral charges Rs.15,000/- Enhancement at the rate of 10% after three years Rs.22,000/- Total Rs.17,08,380/- 31. In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum on the entire award amount from the date of filing of petition till deposit. 32. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned between claimant Renu and her son Master Sahil in the ratio of 70:30. 33. Quantum in MAC Petition No.52-D/II/2009 33.1 In this case, the death of minor Master Aman had taken place. Learned Tribunal has found the age of deceased as 14 years. His notional income was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal based its findings on the judgment passed in Oriental Insurance Company vs. Smt. Indro Devi, 2015(4) TAC 700 (HP) to hold that the annual dependency would be Rs.36,000/- i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month. By application of multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs.5,76,000/-. In addition, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- have been awarded on account of funeral charges and transportation charges, respectively. Rs.1,00,000/- has also been awarded on account of loss of consortium. 33.2 As regards the loss of dependency, the same has been reasonably assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and cannot be faulted with. However, in order to bring the compensation under other heads, in terms of constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the judgment passed by two judges Bench in Nanu Ram (supra), the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is required to be modified as under: Loss of dependency Rs.5,76,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Funeral charges Rs.15,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Increase at the rate of 10% after every three years on the compensation awarded under conventional heads Rs.14,000/- Total Rs.6,60,000/- 34. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit. 35. Quantum in MAC Petition No.51-D/II/2009 36. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit. 35. Quantum in MAC Petition No.51-D/II/2009 36. In this case, learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,78,144/- to the injured Master Sahil under the following heads: Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs.50,144/- Loss of future amenities and expectations of life Rs.1,50,000/- Conveyance and food nourishment expenses Rs.50,000/- Loss of income Rs.50,000/- Indoor hospital expenses Rs.28,000/- Compensation on account of disability Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.5,78,144/- 36.1 Record reveals that the disability of the claimant has not been proved in accordance with law. The disability certificate has not been proved by author of the document. No medical expert has been examined as a witness. 36.2 It is more than settled that physical disability is different than the functional disability, which could be proved by some medical expert or other specific evidence to that effect. Claimant was 12 years old at the time of accident. Document Ext. P-3 reveals that the claimant had remained admitted in Dr. Rajinder Prasad Government Medial College and Hospital, Tanda w.e.f. 26.03.2009 to 01.04.2009 i.e. for a period of 7 days, which proves the fact that the injuries suffered by the claimant at least were not minor in nature. The award of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and sufferings, in such circumstances cannot be said to be unjustified. 36.3 Keeping in view the factum of hospitalization of claimant for 7 days, an amount of Rs.50,144/- has been awarded as medical expenses. Similarly, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded for conveyance and food nourishment expenses. It can further be seen that Rs.28,000/- has been awarded for indoor hospital expenses. The compensation under all these heads has been assessed on pure guess work. The fact of the matter remains that the claimant had remained hospitalized for 7 days and all the expenses, as assessed under the aforesaid three heads, would have occurred during the same period. The medical expenses and indoor hospital expenses to a large extent would be overlapping. Similarly, the compensation on account of conveyance and food nourishment expenses to a larger extent will be available for the period of hospitalization, more particularly, in absence of any evidence of post hospitalization care of the claimant. The medical expenses and indoor hospital expenses to a large extent would be overlapping. Similarly, the compensation on account of conveyance and food nourishment expenses to a larger extent will be available for the period of hospitalization, more particularly, in absence of any evidence of post hospitalization care of the claimant. Thus, I feel that an amount of Rs.75,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- under each of these heads will be reasonable and fair compensation. 36.4 Further an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded for loss of future amenities and expectation of life. As noticed above, the disability has not been proved in accordance with law. Moreover, there is no evidence of functional disability, if any, suffered by the claimant. Still, since a young child of 12 years had suffered huge trauma which is likely to have long lasting effect on his personality, an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of future amenities and expectation of life will be reasonable amount. 36.5 Compensation granted under the head loss of income is unjustified in absence of any evidence as to functional disability suffered by the claimant or its effect, if any on the earning capacity of the claimant in future. 36.6 Similarly, the compensation granted to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of disability suffered by claimant is unjustified because his disability has not been proved in accordance with law. 36.7 Thus, the claimant Master Sahil is held entitled to the compensation as under: Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Conveyance and food nourishment expenses Rs.25,000/- Loss of income NIL Indoor hospital expenses Rs.25,000/- Compensation on account of disability NIL Total Rs.2,25,000/- 37. The claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of compensation till deposit of the amount. 38. Quantum in MAC Petition No.53-D/II/2009 38.1 The claimant has been awarded a total sum of Rs.3,12,000/- under the following heads: Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of future amenities and expectation of life Rs.1,50,000/- Conveyance and food nourishment expenses Rs.50,000/- Indoor hospital expenses Rs.12,000/- Total 3,12,0000/- 38.2 The total period of hospitalization of the claimant has been 3 days. No medical expert has been examined to reveal the exact nature of injuries or disability, if any, suffered by the claimant. Nonetheless what has been proved is that the claimant was victim of motor vehicle accident. No medical expert has been examined to reveal the exact nature of injuries or disability, if any, suffered by the claimant. Nonetheless what has been proved is that the claimant was victim of motor vehicle accident. He had suffered injuries and had remained hospitalized for 3 days. His disability certificate has also not been proved in accordance with law. In such circumstances, compensation granted for loss of future amenities and expectation of life to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- appears to be unjustified and in my considered view, the interest of justice will be served by restricting compensation under this head to Rs.75,000/-. Compensation awarded under other heads is reasonable and justified, hence needs no interference. 38.4 Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation as under: Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of future amenities and expectation of life Rs.75,000/- Conveyance and food nourishment expenses Rs.50,000/- Indoor hospital expenses Rs.12,000/- Total 2,37,000/- 39. The claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the award amount from the date of compensation till deposit of the amount. 40. In result, all the appeals are disposed of in terms of what has been held above. Awards dated 23,08,2016, passed in MACP No.54-D/II/2009, dated 08.03.2017, passed in MACP No.52- D/II/2009, dated 09.03.2017, passed in MACP No.53-D/II/2009 and dated 29.06.2017, passed in MACP No.51-D/II/2009, by the learned Tribunal shall stand modified to the extent as held above. 41. Appeals are accordingly disposed of along with all pending application(s), if any.