JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') passed in M.A.C.P. No. 2438 of 1998, by which learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein and has awarded Rs. 38,70,453 as compensation for the death of one Jayendrabhai Patel and holding the driver of Suzuki motor cycle 100 per cent negligent for the accident, the appellant herein, insurer of Suzuki motor cycle involved in the accident, has preferred the present first appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts leading to the present first appeal in nutshell are as under: 1.1. That accident in question occurred on 6.11.1998 at about 11.30 a.m. between LML Vespa scooter bearing No. G.J. 6-R 8194 and Suzuki motor cycle bearing No. G.J. 6-F 4863 on the crossroad between villages Sarbhan-Ghamnadh. The accident took place where there was 'U' turn of the road. One Jayendrabhai Patel, owner of Vespa scooter, was riding it with his relative (nephew) Ketankumar on the pillion and Hareshchandrasinh Rana, opponent No. 1, was riding Suzuki motor cycle with a pillion rider thereon, which came from the opposite direction and both the aforesaid two-wheelers collided with each other, as a result of which all the four persons on the two-wheelers fell down on the road. Jayendrabhai Patel had suffered serious head injuries and others suffered minor injuries. All of them were taken to Sarbhan Hospital. As Jayendrabhai Patel was seriously injured and sustained head injuries, he was shifted to Vadodara for better treatment where he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. That the original claimants, his widow, two minor children and parents aged 90 and 88 years filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was numbered as M.A.C.P. No. 2438 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs. 40,00,000 with interest and costs for the death of aforesaid Jayendrabhai Patel. That Hareshchandrasinh Rana, the original opponent No. 1, who was driver of Suzuki motor cycle, and Natvarlal Maganlal Padhiyar, original opponent No. 2, was owner of the aforesaid vehicle and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant herein-original opponent No. 3, was the insurer of Suzuki motor cycle. 40,00,000 with interest and costs for the death of aforesaid Jayendrabhai Patel. That Hareshchandrasinh Rana, the original opponent No. 1, who was driver of Suzuki motor cycle, and Natvarlal Maganlal Padhiyar, original opponent No. 2, was owner of the aforesaid vehicle and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., appellant herein-original opponent No. 3, was the insurer of Suzuki motor cycle. That father of the deceased Jayendrabhai Patel, original claimant No. 4, died pending the claim application and, therefore, he came to be deleted vide the order passed below Exh. 15. 1.2. The claim petition was opposed by original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing the written statement at Exh. 15. It was contended on behalf of original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 that the allegations in para 11 of the claim petition are got up, in respect of the said accident, there was no negligence on the part of the opponents. Therefore, the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of Suzuki motor cycle, opponent No. 1. 1.3. The claim application was also opposed by insurer of Suzuki motor cycle, original opponent No. 3, by filing written statement at Exh. 28 denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. It was the case on behalf of the insurer of Suzuki motor cycle, the appellant herein-original opponent No. 3, that at the place where the accident took place, there was a curve and it was the deceased who was riding the scooter at high speed and came on to the wrong side and dashed with the motor cycle. 1.4. That the learned Tribunal framed the issues. 1.5. Both the parties led evidence oral as well as documentary. On behalf of the claimants, Ketankumar Bhailalbhai Patel who was pillion rider of Vespa scooter involved in the accident came to be examined at Exh. 48. That on appreciation of evidence on record, documentary as well as oral, the learned Tribunal held the issue No. 1 in affirmative and held the driver of Suzuki motor cycle, original opponent No. 1, solely negligent for the accident due to which deceased died. 1.6. That the widow of the deceased Smitaben Jayendrabhai Patel, the original claimant No. 1, came to be examined at Exh. 30. It was stated that after the accident, deceased was moved to Sarbhan Hospital where primary treatment was given to him. 1.6. That the widow of the deceased Smitaben Jayendrabhai Patel, the original claimant No. 1, came to be examined at Exh. 30. It was stated that after the accident, deceased was moved to Sarbhan Hospital where primary treatment was given to him. From there, deceased was moved to SGS Hospital, Vadodara, where during the treatment deceased died. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the claimants that as deceased died after some time and, therefore, deceased must have suffered pain, shock and suffering and, therefore, claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000 under the head of pain, shock and suffering. It was also the case on behalf of the claimants that deceased Jayendrabhai Patel had done M.Sc. with first class. He was serving in GSFC as Supervisor since last 15 years. At the time of accident, deceased still had 20 more years left in service. At the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs. 17,000 per month. That the applicants were dependent on her husband's income and he was the only breadwinner of the family. It was the case on behalf of the claimants that had the deceased not died in the accident, deceased would have been earning Rs. 80,000 p.m. 1.7. To prove the income and other benefits like employer's contributory provident fund and the amount of gratuity, etc., one Manojbhai Anabhai Shah, Industrial Relations Officer in the Personnel Department of GSFC, came to be examined at Exh. 40. In his deposition, he has stated that at the time of accident deceased was serving as Supervisor (Quality Control). He produced on record the service book of the deceased. As per the service book birth date of Jayendrabhai was 31.10.1957. It was stated that deceased was to retire in the year 2017. Certified copy of the service book was produced at Exh. 41. The letter of pay fixation was produced at Exh. 43. As per the pay slip of deceased of October 1998 produced at Exh. 44, salary of the deceased was shown as Rs. 13,773.98. The statement of future income of the deceased was produced at Exh. 45, in which it was stated that the deceased would have got Rs. 26,311 at the time of retirement. The statement of gratuity of the deceased is produced at Exh. 47, which shows that the deceased would have got Rs. 13,773.98. The statement of future income of the deceased was produced at Exh. 45, in which it was stated that the deceased would have got Rs. 26,311 at the time of retirement. The statement of gratuity of the deceased is produced at Exh. 47, which shows that the deceased would have got Rs. 5,64,000 at the time of his retirement, out of which, company has already paid Rs. 1,83,580. 1.8. That on appreciation of evidence and considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 13,773.98 at the time of accident and his salary at the time of retirement in 2017 at Rs. 26,311 per month and taking mean of the aforesaid two, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,042 per month for the purpose of future economic loss towards personal expenditure of the deceased, applying multiplier of 15, by the impugned judgment and award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 24,05,160 under the head of future economic loss. 1.9. Considering the deposition of witness Manoj Shah at Exh. 40 and the documents produced at Exhs. 46 and 47, learned Tribunal has also awarded a further sum of Rs. 10,24,873 being loss of provident fund amount with interest and Rs. 3,80,420 being the difference in the gratuity and has further awarded Rs. 20,000 under the head of expectation of life, Rs. 20,000 under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 20,000 as funeral expenses. Thus, the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded a total sum of Rs. 38,70,453 to the original claimants as compensation for the death of the deceased Jayendrabhai Patel with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till December 2000 and thereafter at the rate of 6 per cent per annum up to deposition or realization with proportionate costs thereon. 1.10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the insurance company of Suzuki motor cycle, the appellant herein-original opponent No. 3, has preferred the present first appeal. 2. Mr. K.K. Nair, learned advocate for the insurance company, appellant-original opponent No. 3, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of Suzuki motor cycle solely negligent for the accident. 2. Mr. K.K. Nair, learned advocate for the insurance company, appellant-original opponent No. 3, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the driver of Suzuki motor cycle solely negligent for the accident. It is submitted that considering the panchnama of the place of accident and on the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal ought to have held the drivers of both the vehicles contributory negligent. It is submitted that as both the vehicles involved in the accident are two-wheelers and as per panchnama of the place of accident, the accident took place in the middle of the road and there was a head-on collision and the damage is on the right side of both the vehicles, the learned Tribunal ought to have held the drivers of both the vehicles contributory negligent. It is further submitted that as such in the criminal trial the original opponent, driver of Suzuki motor cycle, has been acquitted wherein witness Ketankumar Patel, pillion rider on Vespa scooter, was examined. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in relying upon the deposition of Ketankumar while holding the driver of Suzuki motor cycle solely negligent. It is submitted that as Ketankumar who is close relative and nephew of the deceased and was also pillion rider on the scooter, he being interested witness in the outcome of the case in favour of the claimants, learned Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the deposition of the said witness. 2.1. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,042 while awarding the compensation under the head of future economic loss. It is submitted that as per the salary slip produced at Exh. 44, the deceased was earning Rs. 13,773.98 at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 13,773.98 which the deceased was receiving/getting at the time of accident. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Sandhya Sahegal, 2013 ACJ 492 (Gujarat), it is submitted that for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss, the income drawn at the time of death only is required to be considered and not income at the time of retirement. Corpn. v. Sandhya Sahegal, 2013 ACJ 492 (Gujarat), it is submitted that for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss, the income drawn at the time of death only is required to be considered and not income at the time of retirement. It is further submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 24,05,160 under the head of future economic loss considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,042 per month. 2.2. Mr. Nair, learned advocate for the appellant insurance company, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 10,24,873 being loss of provident fund with interest and Rs. 3,80,420 as loss of gratuity. It is submitted that while awarding the aforesaid amount, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the sole decision of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Amit Kumar Kanayalal, 1997 ACJ 646 (Gujarat), without appreciating that the said decision was rendered on its own facts. It is submitted that as such there is no decision of this court subsequent to the aforesaid which has taken such view. It is submitted that even till date, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also not taken such a view. 2.3. It is further submitted that even otherwise on merits also the claimants shall not be entitled to any amount for loss of provident fund and loss of gratuity. It is submitted that as such payment of provident fund is contingent on two things, viz., the employee serving the period for which payment is to be made and his contribution towards the provident fund. It is submitted that even the employer's contribution to the provident fund would be depending upon the employee having worked and continued in service and the employee also contributes towards provident fund. It is submitted that in the present case without deceased being in service and without any contribution from him, the learned Tribunal has committed an error to award the loss of provident fund on assumption what the deceased would have got in the year 2017 when he was to retire from service. It is submitted that in the present case without deceased being in service and without any contribution from him, the learned Tribunal has committed an error to award the loss of provident fund on assumption what the deceased would have got in the year 2017 when he was to retire from service. It is submitted that assuming without admitting that the claimants are entitled to loss of provident fund, in such case also, as the amount of provident fund would have been released to the deceased at the time of retirement, i.e., in the year 2017, the claimants are paid earlier, the claimants shall not be entitled to any interest on the aforesaid amount of provident fund. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding even the interest on the amount of provident fund, which otherwise the deceased would have got at the time of his retirement, i.e., in the year 2017. 2.4. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), more particularly, para 24, it is submitted that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that imponderables in life are too many and it is equally possible that if he had not died in the accident, he might have died on account of ill health or other accident or lost the employment or met some other calamity or disadvantage. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding difference in the employer's P.F. contribution from the death of the deceased till he would have retired/superannuated. 2.5. So far as amount of loss of gratuity awarded by the learned Tribunal is concerned, it is submitted that it is also contingent on the employee serving full term of service and that too the entitlement is limited to particular months of salary and this having not been the case, the so called assessment of loss is on an erroneous assumption and requires to be set aside. 2.6. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow the present first appeal. 3. Present appeal is opposed by Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, the learned advocate for original claimants. Now, so far as the issue with respect to contributory negligence is concerned, Mr. 2.6. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to allow the present first appeal. 3. Present appeal is opposed by Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, the learned advocate for original claimants. Now, so far as the issue with respect to contributory negligence is concerned, Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants, has fairly conceded that in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, the deceased Jayendrabhai Patel, driver of the scooter, can be held contributory negligent to the extent of 25 per cent and, therefore, it is requested to answer the aforesaid issue/question accordingly. 3.1. Now, so far as quantum and the amount of Rs. 24,05,160 awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of future economic loss considering the income of deceased at Rs. 20,042 per month is concerned, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error and/or illegality. It is submitted that even as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), looking to the age of deceased, 30 per cent of the actual income is required to be added towards future prospects. He has fairly conceded that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) looking to the age of deceased multiplier of 14 is required to be applied. 3.2. Now, so far as the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of provident fund with interest and the loss of gratuity is concerned, Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants, has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Amit Kumar Kanayalal, 1997 ACJ 646 (Gujarat). It is submitted that if the deceased had not died in unfortunate accident, he would have retired in 2017 and as per certificate produced at Exh. 46 employer was making its contribution towards P.F. at 12 per cent of basic and dearness allowance. It is, therefore, submitted that company's P.F. contribution, as per the above, would have been till the deceased would have continued in service on attaining the age of superannuation. 46 employer was making its contribution towards P.F. at 12 per cent of basic and dearness allowance. It is, therefore, submitted that company's P.F. contribution, as per the above, would have been till the deceased would have continued in service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted, therefore, that any loss towards employer's contribution of P.F. which otherwise the deceased employee would have got till he attained the age of superannuation, if he had survived, it can be said to be a loss to estate. Therefore, it is submitted that as such learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding loss of P.F., i.e., loss of employer's P.F. contribution. However, has fairly conceded that the claimants shall not be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount of loss of P.F. (employer's contribution) as they will be getting the said amount earlier than what the deceased employee would have got at the time of his superannuation. 3.3. Now, so far as the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of gratuity amount is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants, that as per the certificate produced at Exh. 47, deceased would have received Rs. 5,64,600 towards gratuity at the time of his superannuation, if the deceased had survived, against which claimants have received only Rs. 1,83,580 and, therefore, there would be loss of Rs. 3,81,020 for gratuity, which would be a loss to the estate and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and/or illegality in awarding loss of gratuity. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the original claimants, has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta, 1977 ACJ 134 (SC), and it is submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court death-cum-retirement gratuity that deceased may have got, might however be included as loss to the estate. It is submitted that even in unreported decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tejuben Jerambhai Vadher the Division Bench has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding loss of gratuity amount as loss to estate. It is submitted, therefore, that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding loss of provident fund and loss of gratuity. 3.4. Ltd. v. Tejuben Jerambhai Vadher the Division Bench has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding loss of gratuity amount as loss to estate. It is submitted, therefore, that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding loss of provident fund and loss of gratuity. 3.4. Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal accordingly. 4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there is broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties on the issue/question of negligence and the learned advocates for the respective parties have agreed to hold that deceased Jayendrabhai, driver of the scooter, be held contributory negligent to the extent of 25 per cent and the driver of Suzuki motor cycle be held contributory negligent to the extent of 75 per cent. Even otherwise, considering the evidence on record and considering the fact that both the vehicles were involved in the accident and the accident took place in the middle of the road and there was a head-on collision and the damage on the right side of both the vehicles, we are of the opinion that deceased Jayendrabhai Patel, driver of scooter, be held contributory negligent to the extent of 25 per cent and driver of the motor cycle be held contributory negligent to the extent of 75 per cent. Consequently, issue/question with respect to contributory negligence is answered accordingly and deceased Jayendrabhai Patel is held contributory negligent to the extent of 25 per cent and driver of the motor cycle be held contributory negligent to the extent of 75 per cent for the accident in question. 5. Now, next question which is posed for consideration of this court is whether learned Tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality in awarding Rs. 24,05,160 under the head of future economic loss, Rs. 10,24,873 towards loss of provident fund (employer's P.F. contribution) with interest and Rs. 3,80,420 towards loss of gratuity? 5.1. Now, so far as amount awarded under the head of future economic loss at Rs. 24,05,160 is concerned, it appears that while considering the dependency, the learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased at Rs. 20,042 considering mean between Rs. 10,24,873 towards loss of provident fund (employer's P.F. contribution) with interest and Rs. 3,80,420 towards loss of gratuity? 5.1. Now, so far as amount awarded under the head of future economic loss at Rs. 24,05,160 is concerned, it appears that while considering the dependency, the learned Tribunal has considered income of the deceased at Rs. 20,042 considering mean between Rs. 13,773.98, the salary of the deceased at the time of accident, and Rs. 26,311, being amount of salary which deceased would have got at the time of his retirement. As held by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sandhva Sane-gal, , 2013 ACJ 492 (Gujarat), while awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss income drawn at the time of death only is required to be considered and not income at the time of retirement. As such the aforesaid view is consistently taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court in catena of decisions. Even in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss, the income/salary of the deceased at the time of accident is required to be considered. Under the circumstances, as such learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future economic loss considering income of the deceased at Rs. 20,042 per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and considering the age of the deceased at 41 years, further 30 per cent is required to be added for future prospects. Considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and looking to the number of dependants, 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and, therefore, while awarding compensation under the head of future economic loss dependency is required to be considered at Rs. 12,137 per month and applying multiplier of 14 as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 20,39,016 under the head of future economic loss. 6. 12,137 per month and applying multiplier of 14 as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 20,39,016 under the head of future economic loss. 6. Now, so far as amount awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of employer's provident fund contribution and interest thereon is concerned, it is required to be noted and it has come on record and as per certificate produced at Exh. 46 in the present case that the provident fund contribution of the employer was at 12 per cent of the basic pay and dearness allowance and as per the certificate produced at Exh. 46 the employer's contribution for provident fund till retirement/superannuation of the deceased employee comes to Rs. 4,59,888. The aforesaid employer's provident fund contribution would have been received by the deceased employee at the time of his superannuation/retirement, i.e., in the year 2017. If the deceased employee had survived and had not died in the unfortunate accident, the deceased would have got the aforesaid employer's provident fund contribution, i.e., Rs. 4,59,888 and, therefore, the aforesaid loss of employer's provident fund contribution can be said to be loss to the estate and loss to the family. Therefore, as such the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and/or illegality in awarding loss of provident fund (loss of employer's contribution). However, at the same time, the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding interest on the same for the period between 1996 and 2017, i.e., Rs. 5,64,985 being interest on the amount of provident fund. As the claimant would be receiving the loss of employer's provident fund contribution while awarding compensation and earlier than the employee would have received, if he had survived and continued in service, i.e., prior to his date of superannuation, therefore, as such claimant shall not be entitled to any interest on the loss of provident fund (employer's contribution) from the death till he would have superannuated. However, at the same time the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount of loss of provident fund from the date of award till realization. However, at the same time the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount of loss of provident fund from the date of award till realization. As stated above, learned advocate for the original claimants has as such conceded that the claimants may not be entitled to interest on the loss of provident fund contribution (employer's contribution from the date of death of the deceased till his superannuation/retirement). However, it is clarified and it is observed that the loss of employer's provident fund contribution would depend upon terms and conditions of employment of the concerned employee and in a given case if the employer's provident fund contribution is equal to employee's provident fund contribution, however, subject to maximum limitation as per the terms of the employment, in such a case, mean of last five years' employee's/employer's contribution can be considered while considering the loss of provident fund/employer's contribution. 7. Now, so far as amount awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of gratuity is concerned, it has come on record and as per Exh. 47 if the deceased had survived and had continued till his attaining the age of superannuation, he would have got Rs. 5,64,600 towards gratuity. However, the company has paid only Rs. 1,83,580 as gratuity till the deceased died. Therefore, there would be a loss of Rs. 3,81,020 towards the gratuity amount. It cannot be disputed that if the deceased had survived and/or deceased had not died in the unfortunate accident, he would have retired in the year 2017 and, therefore, he would have got aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,64,600 towards gratuity. Thus, there would be loss of Rs. 3,81,020 towards difference in the gratuity to the family and, therefore, aforesaid loss of death-cum-retirement gratuity can be said to be loss to the estate, which the claimants shall be entitled to get under the head of loss to the estate. As per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years; on his superannuation or on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. It further provides that completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to the death or disablement. It further provides that completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to the death or disablement. It also further provides that in the case of death of employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs. As per sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. Therefore, claimants shall be entitled to difference in the loss of gratuity to the extent the amount of gratuity already received in case of premature death and the amount of gratuity which he would have received at the time of his superannuation. Even in such a case also claimants shall not be entitled to interest on such loss of gratuity from the date of death till he would have got amount of gratuity and on superannuation, however, will be entitled to interest on such loss of gratuity from the date of award till realization. 8. Now, so far as reliance placed upon para 24 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), by the learned advocate for appellant insurance company by submitting that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the imponderables in life are too many and it is equally possible that if he had not died in the accident, he might have died on account of ill health or other accident or lost the employment or met some other calamity or disadvantage and, therefore, the claimants shall not be entitled to difference in the employer's provident fund contribution and/or loss of gratuity from the date of death of the deceased till he would have superannuated is concerned, it is required to be noted that the observations are made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to amount of compensation to be awarded under the head of future economic loss. As observed hereinabove, loss to the family members of employer's provident fund contribution and loss of gratuity for the period between untimely death of the deceased and date of superannuation is required to be considered as loss to the estate. Under the circumstances, as such the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not be of any assistance to the appellant insurance company. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds in part. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 20,39,016 under the head of future economic loss; Rs. 4,59,888 being the loss of employer's provident fund contribution and Rs. 3,80,420 towards loss of gratuity. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 20,000 towards loss of expectation of life, Rs. 20,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses, transportation, etc. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total sum of Rs. 29,39,324 towards compensation for death of Jayendrabhai Patel with 9 per cent interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. However, it is clarified that the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the amount of loss of gratuity and/or loss of employer's contribution towards provident fund only from the date of judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal till its realization. It goes without saying that any amount deposited by the appellant insurance company in excess to the aforesaid amount of compensation, the appellant insurance company shall also be entitled to recover the amount from the claimants from the amount of fixed deposit, deposited and invested pursuant to the interim order passed by this court. The present appeal is allowed partly to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.