JUDGMENT : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. 1. All these five appeals were taken up for hearing together as common question falls for determination in these appeals. 2. There is no dispute as regards the involvement of the vehicles or coverage of the insurance policy nor is any dispute as regards the proportionate negligence on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles inasmuch as the two Insurance Companies involved have also not preferred either any appeal or any cross objection in these appeals. 3. The only question that is required to be decided in these appeals is, whether the Tribunal below was justified in calculating the amount of compensation. 4. Both Mr Prajapati, learned advocate appearing in First Appeal No.3267 of 2007 and Mr Keyur Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr Sarthak K Vyas in First Appeal Nos. 795 to 798 of 2007 for the appellants have contended that while considering the question of compensation, the Tribunal below did not take into consideration the future prospect of the victims as all the victims were employed and there is also no dispute as regards their salary. The Tribunal below in these cases has simply applied appropriate multiplier by deducting one-third amount for the personal expenditure of the victims and thereafter, arrived at a figure of loss of dependency benefit and to the aforesaid sum, some amount has been awarded towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of expectancy of life and for funeral expenses. Both Mr. Prajapati and Mr Vyas submits that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 should be followed. 5. Mr. Mazmudar, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. having 75% liability and Mr. Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. having liability of 25%, have fairly submitted that the Tribunal below has not considered the question of future prospect and if we propose of apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), in that event, the said amount is to be taken into consideration. 6. Ltd. having liability of 25%, have fairly submitted that the Tribunal below has not considered the question of future prospect and if we propose of apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), in that event, the said amount is to be taken into consideration. 6. I do not find any reason why the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) should not be applied in the facts of the present case. I, therefore, propose to modify the award impugned by enhancing the same by taking into consideration the prospective income as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and thus, the calculations should be as follows :- FIRST APPEAL No.3267 of 2007 arising from MACP No.881 of 2003: 7. The salary of the victim was Rs.6648/- a month. Since the victim was aged 45 years, 30% should be added to the said income to arrive at a figure of Rs.8642/-.From the said, one-third should be deducted to arrive at a figure of Rs.5761/- and since the victim was aged 45 years, appropriate multiplier should be 14. Therefore, total amount of loss of prospective income will come to Rs.5761 X 12 X 14 = Rs.9,67,848/-. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.25,000/- should be added towards conventional amount to arrive at a total figure of Rs.9,92,848/-. 8. I am of the view that the rate of interest should be 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2,25,272/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation within two months from today. FIRST APPEAL No.795 of 2007 arising from MACP No.897 of 2003: 10. The salary of the victim was Rs.6245/- a month. Since the victim was aged 40 years, 50% should be added to the said income to arrive at a figure of Rs.9367/-.From the said, one-third should be deducted to arrive at a figure of Rs.6245/- and since the victim was aged 40 years, appropriate multiplier should be 15. Therefore, total amount of loss of prospective income will come to Rs.6245 X 12 X 15 = Rs.11,24,100/-. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.25,000/- should be added towards conventional amount to arrive at a total figure of Rs.11,49,100/-. Therefore, total amount of loss of prospective income will come to Rs.6245 X 12 X 15 = Rs.11,24,100/-. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.25,000/- should be added towards conventional amount to arrive at a total figure of Rs.11,49,100/-. 11. I am of the view that the rate of interest should be 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,76,700/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation within two months from today. FIRST APPEAL No.797 of 2007 arising from MACP No.1003 of 2003: 13. The salary of the victim was Rs.6116/- a month. Since the victim was aged 38 years, 50% should be added to the said income to arrive at a figure of Rs.9174/-.From the said, one-third should be deducted to arrive at a figure of Rs.6116/- and since the victim was aged 38 years, appropriate multiplier should be 15. Therefore, total amount of loss of prospective income will come to Rs.6116 X 12 X 15 = Rs.11,00,880/-. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.25,000/- should be added towards conventional amount to arrive at a total figure of Rs.11,25,880/-. 14. I am of the view that the rate of interest should be 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,68,960/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation within two months from today. FIRST APPEAL No.798 of 2007 arising from MACP No.1025 of 2003: 16. The salary of the victim was Rs.4905/- a month. Since the victim was aged 30 years, 50% should be added to the said income to arrive at a figure of Rs.7357/-.From the said, one-third should be deducted to arrive at a figure of Rs.4905/- and since the victim was aged 30 years, appropriate multiplier should be 17. Therefore, total amount of loss of prospective income will come to Rs.4905 X 12 X 17 = Rs.10,00,620/-. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.25,000/- should be added towards conventional amount to arrive at a total figure of Rs.10,25,620/-. 17. I am of the view that the rate of interest should be 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 18. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.25,000/- should be added towards conventional amount to arrive at a total figure of Rs.10,25,620/-. 17. I am of the view that the rate of interest should be 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,35,540/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation within two months from today. FIRST APPEAL No.796 of 2007 arising from MACP No.1118 of 2003: 19. The salary of the victim was Rs.6116/- a month. Since the victim was aged 37 years, 50% should be added to the said income to arrive at a figure of Rs.9174/-.From the said, one-third should be deducted to arrive at a figure of Rs.6116/- and since the victim was aged 38 years, appropriate multiplier should be 15. Therefore, total amount of loss of prospective income will come to Rs.6116 X 12 X 15 = Rs.11,00,880/-. To the aforesaid amount, Rs.25,000/- should be added towards conventional amount to arrive at a total figure of Rs.11,25,880/-. 20. I am of the view that the rate of interest should be 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.3,68,960/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation within two months from today. 21. All the appeals are thus, disposed of with the modifications as indicated above. No order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.