JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant-insurance company has challenged the judgment and order dated 13th April 1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) Panchmahals at Godhra in MAC Petition No.765 of 1994 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,95,000 to the claimants. 2. The short facts of the present appeal are that on 20th July 1994 while deceased Fatesinh Shabhsinh was going towards Panchmahal Steel Limited for his service on his scooter, at that time his scooter was given a dash by motor vehicle No.GJ1 R 2547 because of which deceased Fatesinh had received serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. The claimants, being wife and children of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads. The tribunal considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record has awarded Rs.6,95,000 to the claimants under various heads along with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of application till realisation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Mr Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion with respect to future income of the deceased at Rs.4,500. He further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken prospective income of the deceased at Rs.3,100 and a mean income of Rs.3600 should have been considered and after deducting ?rd income the datum figure ought to have been assessed at Rs.2600/-. He further submitted that the multiplier of 16 is on higher side and it should have been 15. He therefore submitted that at the most the claimants would be entitled to Rs.4 lakhs. He has also contended that the rate of interest at 15% is also on higher side and it should not be more than 9%. 5. Mr Hakim, learned counsel for the original claimants has supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for. He, however, pointed out that as per the decision of the Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5,000 as funeral expenses. He, however, pointed out that as per the decision of the Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ) the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5,000 as funeral expenses. He has also submitted that as per the decision of the Sarla Verma (supra) the Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼th amount instead of ?rd amount. Learned counsel for the claimants has also submitted that the deceased was getting a bonus of Rs.34,690 per year which would roughly come to Rs.3000 per month and therefore the future economic loss would be Rs.4350 per month and if ¼th amount is deducted towards his personal expenses, Rs.3250 would be the datum figure. 6. At the time of death, deceased employee was earning Rs.2600 per month. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 179 : ( AIR 1996 SC 1274 ), the average gross future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs.2,900/- (L 2600 plus Rs.300 being bonus) per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs.8,700/- divided by 2, i.e., Rs.4350/-. Rs.3,900/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a bread winner. From that gross monthly income at least ¼th will have to be deducted by way of his personal expenses and other liabilities like payment of income tax etc. That would roughly work out to Rs.1087/- per month but even taking a higher figure of Rs.1087/- i.e. Rs.1100 per month and deducting the same by way of average personal expenses of the deceased from the average gross earning of Rs.4350/- per month, balance of Rs.3250/- would have been the average amount available to the family of the deceased, i.e., his dependents, namely, the claimants. It is this figure which would be the datum figure per month which on annual basis would work out to Rs.39,000/-. It is this figure which would be the datum figure per month which on annual basis would work out to Rs.39,000/-. Rs.39,000/-, therefore, would be the proper multiplicand which would be available for capitalisation for computing the future economic loss suffered by the claimants on account of untimely death of the bread winner. As the age of the deceased was 35 years at the time of his death the proper multiplier in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) would be 15. Rs.39,000/- multiplied by 15 will work out to Rs.5,85,000/-. To this figure will have to be added the conventional figure of loss of expectation of life and consortium of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000 towards funeral charges. That will lead to a total figure of Rs.6,10,000/-. This is the amount which the claimants would be entitled to get by way of compensation from the appellants. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order dated 13th April 1998 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) Panchmahals at Godhra in MAC Petition No.765 of 1994 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,95,000/- to the claimants is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,10,000/- The excess amount is ordered to be refunded to the insurance company. Further, the rate of interest at 15% awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The same is excessive looking to the decisions of the Apex Court and the same shall not be awarded more than 12%. Hence, it is required to be reduced and accordingly the rate of interest awarded is reduced to 12% per annum from 15% in both the appeals. The excess amount of 3% of interest will be refunded back to the appellant-insurance company if the same is deposited by the appellant with the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Appeal Allowed.