JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal dated 10.10.2007 in M.A.C.P No.1221 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,29,000/- and the interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case are that, on 1.10.2003 at about 4:15 p.m. when the deceased Surendrakumar P. Soni was going on his motorcycle bearing No.GJ1CJ9878 for his business purpose from Ahmedabad to Kheda road near Aslali Petrol Pump, one truck bearing No.GJ2T6086 dashed with the motorcycle, as a result thereof the deceased had fallen down, sustained injuries and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed by the dependent, members of the family of the deceased being M.A.C.P. No.1221 of 2003 for compensation of Rs.25 lacs. The Tribunal ultimately passed the above referred judgment and the award. Under the circumstances the original claimants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 3. We have heard Mr.Karna Dhomse for Mr.Hiren Modi for the appellant and Mr. Palak Thakkar for respondent No.3 - Insurance Company who is the main contesting party. 4. We have considered the record and proceedings and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the quantum of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal is erroneous in as much as income tax returns are not properly considered and further the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 for the prospective income as well as for the multiplier are not considered. He submitted that therefor the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. 6. Mr.Thakkar learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has decided the matter as per the law prevailing then. He submitted that the income tax return filed after the date of the accident has been rightly not considered by the Tribunal and even on the aspect of prospective income, the assessment made by the Tribunal could not be said to be erroneous. 7. He submitted that the income tax return filed after the date of the accident has been rightly not considered by the Tribunal and even on the aspect of prospective income, the assessment made by the Tribunal could not be said to be erroneous. 7. The examination of the aforesaid contention shows that as per the copy of the income tax returns filed at Ex.42, 43 and 44 the income was stated of Rs.80,093/- for the accounting year of 2000-2001, Rs.84,437/- for the accounting year of 2001-2002 and of Rs.107,950/- for the accounting year of 2002-2003. The relevant aspect is that all those income tax returns were filed prior to the date of the accident. The last income tax return is filed on 23.9.2003, whereas the date of the accident is 1.10.2003. There was no reason for the Tribunal to ignore the said aspect. The principles for consideration of income tax returns are by now well settled inasmuch as the income shown in the income tax return deserves to be averaged out. If the aforesaid three figures are considered as income for the respective three years preceding the date of the accident i.e. Rs.80,093/- + Rs.84,437/- + Rs.107,950/-, the total would come to Rs.2,72,480/-. If divided by 03 the average income would come to Rs.90,826/- and if rounded of it can be Rs.91,000/-. As against the same the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income at Rs.7,000/- p. m. that too after considering the prospective income. 8. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and more particularly the observations made at para 24 of the judgment 30% prospective income could be considered as the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. Accordingly such amount of 30% would come to Rs.27,247/- and it can be rounded at Rs.27,000/- + Rs.91,000/-, hence yearly income including prospective income could be assessed at Rs.1,18,000/-. 9. There is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) for the age group of 41 to 45 years, multiplier of 14 is to be applied. As against the same the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 only. 9. There is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) for the age group of 41 to 45 years, multiplier of 14 is to be applied. As against the same the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 12 only. We find that if the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decision in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and more particularly at para 42 are considered, it can be said that the Tribunal committed error in awarding multiplier of 12 only and the appropriate multiplier was required to be considered as of 14. 10. On the aspect of deduction towards personal expenses since the number of claimants were 04, even if the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) are considered, more particularly the observations made at para30, one fourth of the amount will be required to be deducted and it has been so considered by the Tribunal save and except that on account of the enhancement in the assessment of the income such amount would vary. 11. We find that when law is already laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) no much discussion in this regard would be required. 12. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the original claimants - appellants herein can be said as entitled to the compensation as per the following calculation: Rs.1,18,000/- (income assessed). Out of the said amount Rs.29,500/- will be required to be deducted towards personal expenses as net amount would come to Rs.88,500/- per year. Thereafter if multiplier of 14 is applied such amount would come to Rs.12,39,000/-. In addition to the above the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards conventional amount and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses; total Rs.54,000/-. Accordingly the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.12,93,000/-. 13. As per the assessment made by the Tribunal for contributory negligence of 10% has been attributed to the deceased and 90% has been attributed to the driver of the truck. Hence the original claimants - appellants would be entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs.11,63,700/- being 90% of the aforesaid amount of total compensation as against the amount of Rs.7,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Hence the original claimants - appellants would be entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs.11,63,700/- being 90% of the aforesaid amount of total compensation as against the amount of Rs.7,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. On the aspect of awarding of interest we find that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum which appears to be reasonable and therefore, the original claimants - appellants should also be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 8% per annum. 15. Hence it is held that the original claimants - appellants herein shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.11,63,700/- at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim petition until the amount is paid and/or deposited with the Tribunal. The judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 16. The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.