JUDGMENT : JAYANT M. PATEL, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 455 of 2005 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 16,01,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The short facts of the case are that on 20.3.2005 at about 1830 hours on Ankleshwar-Hansot Road when the deceased Rajnikant Laxmidas Patel was going on his tractor bearing No. GJ 16-R 8456, at that time one Tata Sumo vehicle came from Hansot side, as a result thereof the tractor went off the road and the deceased lost control over the steering of the tractor, dashed with a tree and the deceased sustained injuries and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed by the dependent members of the family of the deceased for compensation of Rs. 70,54,381 being M.A.C.P. No. 455 of 2005 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal at the conclusion of the petition passed the above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances the present appeal before this court. 2. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the appellant, Mr. Kashyap Joshi, and Ms. Karuna Rahevar for the respondent No. 3. We have considered the record of the trial court. 3. As such it is an admitted position that so far as respondent No. 3, insurance company, is concerned, it has not challenged the award passed by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence held to the driver of the insured vehicle Tata Sumo and hence no discussion would be required on the said aspect. It is only the original claimants-appellants, who were dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, who have preferred present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Hence the only aspect to be considered is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and whether it calls for enhancement of compensation or not. 4. The Claims Tribunal has discussed the whole evidence from para 8 onwards of the judgment for issue No. 2. It has come on record that the deceased was an employee of Gujarat Insecticides Ltd., as Receptionist and his salary at the time of accident was Rs. 12,693. The said aspect is proved through the evidence of Hiteshkumar Murlidhar Upadhyay, Exh. 37. It has come on record that the deceased was an employee of Gujarat Insecticides Ltd., as Receptionist and his salary at the time of accident was Rs. 12,693. The said aspect is proved through the evidence of Hiteshkumar Murlidhar Upadhyay, Exh. 37. Together with his deposition he has produced pay slip and the calculation of the other benefits available to the deceased at the relevant point of time. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and more particularly the observations made at para 11 for the age group of the deceased between the age of 40 and 50 years the prospective income can be considered. 30 per cent of the principal amount of the salary at the time of accident would come to Rs. 3,807 and accordingly the income including prospective income of the deceased for the purpose of dependency benefit can be considered at Rs. 16,500. Further the amount of Rs. 1,500 is already considered by the Tribunal towards loss of supervision of agricultural land. In this manner we are of the view that Rs. 18,000 p.m. was required to be considered by the Tribunal for the purpose of assessment of the compensation. Out of the said amount of Rs. 18,000 as per the settled legal position in case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), one-third of the amount would be required to be deducted for personal expenses and accordingly the amount of Rs. 6,000 would be required to be deducted and hence the amount of Rs. 12,000 p.m. would be available for the purpose of net dependency benefit. Such amount would come to Rs. 1,44,000 per year. 5. The Tribunal has considered the multiplier of 10 while calculating the dependency benefit, whereas as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and more particularly the observation made at para 21 appropriate multiplier would be 13, since the deceased was aged 47 years. If multiplier of 13 is applied after taking into consideration the amount of Rs. 1,44,000 per year, the loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs. 18,72,000 whereas the Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 13,20,000. If multiplier of 13 is applied after taking into consideration the amount of Rs. 1,44,000 per year, the loss of dependency benefit would come to Rs. 18,72,000 whereas the Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs. 13,20,000. As the legal position is already settled by the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra), it can be said that the Claims Tribunal has committed error and the loss of dependency benefit deserves to be considered at Rs. 18,72,000 and not Rs. 13,20,000 as awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The other benefits awarded by the Claims Tribunal are of Rs. 2,21,261 for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000 towards loss of expectation of life, Rs. 10,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000 towards pain, shock and suffering. In all Rs. 2,76,261 which in our opinion appears to be reasonable and such amount does not deserve to be enhanced. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion it is held that the original claimants-appellants would be entitled to the following compensation: "(1) Rs. 18,72,000 towards loss of dependency benefit. Rs. 2,76,261 towards medical expenses, expectation of life, loss of consortium, pain, shock and suffering (as already awarded by the Tribunal), total Rs. 21,48,261. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation awarded. However, considering the facts and circumstances we find that on the additional amount of Rs. 5,47,261 (Rs. 21,48,261 - Rs. 16,01,000) the original claimants-appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum." 8. The judgment and the award of the Claims Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, Ms. Rahevar, states that the amount of additional compensation with accrued interest as per the present judgment shall be deposited within two months from the receipt of the order of this court.