Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this appeal, the original claimant challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed in MACP No. 17 of 1990, whereby award of Rs. 2,34,000/- had been given for future loss to the appellants. 2. Brief facts leading to filing this petition are that, on 11.07.1980, the deceased and his relative were going to market on his cycle. The deceased was riding his cycle and they were reached near Bhuravav chokdi at that time, he got down his relative and he was only on cycle. At that time when one bus No. GQE 9709 in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed came, which was driven by opponent No. 1 and violently dashed with the deceased and therefore, he fell down and sustained serious injuries on all over his person. During the treatment, he expired in the hospital. Hence the applicants filed claim petition for getting compensation of Rs. 6,40,000/- by way of compensation for the death of their earning and family read on all counts. 3. The appellants – original claimants have preferred this appeal on the following grounds; 1. The judgment and award passed by the tribunal in not awarding the full claim as prayed for is ex-facie, illegal, against the evidence on record which requires to be quashed and set aside. 2. It should have been held that deceased sustained injuries and died on account of rashness and negligent driving on the part of the opponent No. 1 herein, the tribunal ought to have awarded the full claim as prayed for. 3. The tribunal has materially erred in not considering the future raise in the salary and promotional avenue while awarding the future economical loss and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 4. The tribunal has materially erred in not assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 1800/- per month and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 5. The tribunal has materially erred in holding the loss of income to the appellants at Rs. 1300/- per month and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 6. The tribunal has materially erred in awarding the future economical loss by considering the income of deceased at Rs. 1800/- per month and awarding future economical loss at Rs. 1300/- per month to the appellants and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 7. 1300/- per month and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 6. The tribunal has materially erred in awarding the future economical loss by considering the income of deceased at Rs. 1800/- per month and awarding future economical loss at Rs. 1300/- per month to the appellants and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 7. Considering future raise in the salary, D.A., promotional avenue, the tribunal ought to have awarded the future economical loss considering the income of deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 8. The tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economical loss by adopting the multiplier of 15 years and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 9. From the fact that deceased was 30 years of age only and retirement age is 58 years as he was S.R.P. Constable as permanent employee and he has further 28 years to be in service, the tribunal has materially erred in awarding only Rs. 2,34,000/- for loss of future economical loss to the appellants and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 10. The tribunal has further erred in awarding the interest on the compensation at 12% per annum instead of 15% per annum and that has resulted into miscarriage of justice. 11. The judgment and award passed by the tribunal in not awarding the full claim as prayed for is even otherwise erroneous, bad in law and requires to be quashed and set. 12. The appellants crave leave to add, alter, amend and/or substitute any of the grounds as and when it needs in the interest of justice. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying future loss on basis of last salary drawn instead of applying future raise in the salary and promotional avenue. Further, the tribunal has erred in not considering the income of deceased at 1800/- per month and assessing the income at Rs. 1300/- per month. Tribunal has awarded the interest on the compensation at 12% per annum instead of 15% per annum and Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss by adopting the multiplier of 15 years. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. 1300/- per month. Tribunal has awarded the interest on the compensation at 12% per annum instead of 15% per annum and Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss by adopting the multiplier of 15 years. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 and judgment passed in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service vs. Manekben Wd/o. Vithalbhai Damaji Chavda & Ors., Reported in (1981) GLR 575. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that income of the deceased was Rs. 1300/- per month and he was also getting D.A., he was spending Rs. 200/- per month and remaining amount was given to the family. Furthermore, at the time of filing of this appeal, other persons, who were serving with he deceased, getting Rs. 3000/- per month as salary. So, the income should be considered at Rs. 2100/- and 1/3 should be deducted for his income which comes to Rs. 1400/- which is multiplier of 15% comes to Rs. 2,50,000/-. Rs. 2,34,000/- is already awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the matter additional amount of Rs. 17,000/- is allowed. 7. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to additional amount of Rs. 17,000/- and interest at 7.5% from the date of filing the application i.e. from 09.01.1990. 8. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. P P P P P