JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. (CAV) - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (Rural) [hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1692/1993 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.8,74,800/- along with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till realisation, towards compensation for the death of deceased Vinubhai, the appellant herein - original claimant - widow of the deceased has preferred the present First Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. In a vehicular accident which took occurred/took place on 08.08.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. on Jetalpur - Bareja National Highway No.8 between Scooter No. GJ-1S-3003 which at the relevant time was being driven by the deceased Vinubhai and one Truck No. GJ-11T-7907 which at the relevant time was being driven by the original opponent No.1, deceased Vinubhai died. Therefore, the widow of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal initially claiming a total sum of Rs.9 lac towards compensation for the death of the deceased which subsequently was enhanced to Rs.18 lac. 2.1. It was the case on behalf of the original claimant that the deceased died because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck - original opponent No.1. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimant that the deceased was serving as an Additional Assistant Engineer in Patnagar Scheme, Sub-Division, Gandhinagar and was getting Rs.4657/- per month and was aged about 39 years on the date of the accident. Therefore, the original claimant claimed a total sum of Rs.18 lac towards compensation for the death of deceased under different heads. 2.2. That the claim petition was opposed by the opponents by filing the written statements at Exhs.13 and 37. Original opponent Nos.1 and 3 specifically denied that the original opponent No.1 was in anyway negligent for the accident in which the deceased died. It was specifically denied that the deceased was solely negligent for the occurrence of the accident. The claimant examined one Janakkumar Jagjivanram Sangadia at Exh.62 who was the co-employee working with the deceased. Original opponent Nos.1 and 3 specifically denied that the original opponent No.1 was in anyway negligent for the accident in which the deceased died. It was specifically denied that the deceased was solely negligent for the occurrence of the accident. The claimant examined one Janakkumar Jagjivanram Sangadia at Exh.62 who was the co-employee working with the deceased. Relying upon the deposition of the said witness Janakkumar, it was contended on behalf of the original claimant that the income of the deceased for the purpose of future economic loss caused to the claimant shall be considered at Rs.15,900/- per month. Relying upon the deposition of the aforesaid witness it was the case on behalf of the original claimant that there was a revision of pay scale as per the new Pay Commission with effect from 01.04.1992 and the pay scale was revised to Rs.5500/- per month. Therefore, it was requested to award the future economic loss/loss of dependency to the claimant considering the salary/income of the deceased at Rs.15,900/- per month which the co-employee was receiving at the time of deposition. 2.3. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held that the accident was the result of the sole negligence on the part of the truck driver i.e. original opponent No.1. Consequently the learned Tribunal observed and held that therefore the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased does not arise. 2.4. That thereafter the learned Tribunal awarded the future economic loss/loss of dependency considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4657/- per month [which the deceased was receiving at the time of death] and after adding 50% of the aforesaid towards future rise in income and after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.4360/- per month. After applying the multiplier of 16, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,38,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. That thereafter awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, has further awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of expectation of life and a further sum of Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. As the deceased survived for 28 hours after the accident and died in the hospital while taking treatment, the learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.1000/- for medicines and medical treatment. As the deceased survived for 28 hours after the accident and died in the hospital while taking treatment, the learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.1000/- for medicines and medical treatment. Thus, by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.8,74,800/- towards compensation under different heads for the death of the deceased Vinubhai along with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till realisation. 2.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant herein - original claimant has preferred the present appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. Shri Hiren Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original claimant has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.8,38,800/- only under the head of future economic loss and/or loss of dependency. 3.1. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4657/- per month only while considering the future economic loss/loss of dependency. 3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original claimant that while awarding future economic loss the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income/salary of the deceased considering the revision of pay as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission with effect from 01.04.1996. It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original claimant that in view of the specific evidence brought on record by the claimant in the form of deposition of the co-employee Janakkumar Sangadia, who was examined at Exh.62, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the future revision of pay as per the recommendation of the Pay Commission. 3.3. It is submitted that considering the fact that co-employee was receiving Rs.15,900/- per month by way of salary as per the revision of pay on the basis of the recommendation of the Pay Commission, which he was receiving at the time of deposition i.e. in the year 2003, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the future economic loss accordingly. 3.4. 3.4. It is further submitted by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - original claimant that in the present case even otherwise there was a revision of pay with effect from 01.04.1996 as per the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. It is submitted that as per the revision of pay, the pay scale was revised to Rs.6500 - Rs.10,500/-. It is submitted that at the time of the death, the deceased was in the pay scale of Rs.1640 - Rs.2900 and was receiving Rs.4657/- per month by way of salary. It is submitted that the same was revised to Rs.5500 - Rs.9000 with effect from 01.04.1996. It is submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the future economic loss/loss of dependency considering the revision of pay as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission which was with effect from 01.04.1996. 3.5. Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - original claimant has submitted that therefore the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% of the actual salary received by the deceased at the time of accident/death, as future rise in income. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 100% as future rise in income while arriving at prospective income and while calculating future loss of income/loss of dependency. In support of his above submissions and prayer, Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 1. K.R. Madhusudhan and Ors. v. Administrative Officer and Anr. (2011)4 SCC 689 2. New India Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali and Ors. (2012)12 SCC 198 3. Vimal Kanwar and Ors. v. Kishore Dan and Ors. (2013)7 SCC 476 (Paras 25, 28, 32 & 33) 4. Saruyaben Harisingbhai Bilwal v. Ataullahkhan Mehtabkhan Lalkhan Pathan & Ors. 2001(3) GLR 2029 (Guj.) 3.6. Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has even erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only under the conventional head. It is submitted that considering the fact that the accident occurred/took place in the year 1993, considering the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, Rs.50,000/- was required to be awarded under the conventional head. It is submitted that considering the fact that the accident occurred/took place in the year 1993, considering the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, Rs.50,000/- was required to be awarded under the conventional head. Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and enhance the amount of compensation accordingly. 4. Present appeal is opposed by Shri Maulik Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 herein - insured. It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs.8,38,800/- under the head of loss of dependency. 4.1 It is submitted that considering the salary slip (Exh.47) produced on record and the fact that the deceased was getting Rs.4657/- per month towards salary, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the future economic loss considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4657/- per month, which the deceased was receiving at the time of accident/death. It is submitted that thereafter adding 50% of the same towards future rise in income the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the prospective income at Rs.6985/- per month. 4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insured that adding 50% towards future rise in income, while awarding future loss of income/loss of dependency, is absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It is submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) more particularly paras 43 onwards of the said decision has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. reported in (2013)9 SCC 65 (Paras 38 and 39). It is submitted that even the aforesaid is absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben and Ors. reported in (2008)4 SCC 162 . v. Madan Mohan and Anr. reported in (2013)9 SCC 65 (Paras 38 and 39). It is submitted that even the aforesaid is absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Jashuben and Ors. reported in (2008)4 SCC 162 . 4.3 Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - insured has also heavily relied upon the unreported decision of this Court in the case of Ritaben W/o. Pravinkumar Chunilal Patel & Ors. v. Ramraj Harnathji Meena & Ors. rendered in First Appeal No.1045/2015. It is submitted that the Division Bench in the aforesaid case also considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudan (Supra), which was heavily relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant in that case and thereafter after considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) made in paras 44 to 47, the Division Bench has observed that the prospective income is required to be considered on the basis of actual income at the time of accident. 4.4 It is further submitted by Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - insured that even otherwise while awarding future economic loss considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.4657/- per month, the learned Tribunal has not deducted the tax. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has even erred in deducting ?rd only towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that as the claimant was the widow and no other heir and legal representative/dependent, the learned Tribunal as such was required to deduct 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. A short but an interesting question of law which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether while awarding future economic loss/loss of dependency, the income/salary which the deceased was receiving at the time of death is required to be considered or subsequent revision of pay can also be considered while awarding future loss of income/loss of dependency? A short but an interesting question of law which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether while awarding future economic loss/loss of dependency, the income/salary which the deceased was receiving at the time of death is required to be considered or subsequent revision of pay can also be considered while awarding future loss of income/loss of dependency? 5.1 In the present case considering the salary/income of the deceased at the time of accident i.e. Rs.4657/- per month which the deceased was receiving at the time of death and after adding of the same towards future rise in income and thereafter after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.8,38,800/- towards loss of dependency/future loss of income. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimant that as subsequently there was a revision of pay as per the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission with effect from 01.04.1996 and the claimant has led the specific evidence with respect to the salary which the deceased would have received in future, by examining the co-employee Janakkumar Jagjivandas Sangadia who has been examined at Exh.62 and the fact brought on record that co-employee was receiving Rs.15,900/- per month at the time of recording the deposition i.e. in the year 2003, 100% of the actual salary received by the deceased at the time of accident was required to be added towards future rise in income and while considering the prospective income. In support of his above submissions, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - claimant has heavily relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.R. Madhusudan (Supra); Gopali and Ors. (Supra); Vimal Kanwar (Supra) and of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saruyaben Harsingbhai Bilwal (Supra). 5.2 On the other hand learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insured has heavily relied upon paras 44 to 47 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), which has been subsequently approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra). 5.3 In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the specific question on computation of compensation. 5.3 In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the specific question on computation of compensation. After considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held that about 50% can be added to the actual salary, by taking note of future prospects. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court it was contended on behalf of the claimants that actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating income, however the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree with the same and has observed that assumption of the claimants that the actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating income is not sound. By not agreeing with the submissions on behalf of the claimants that actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the income, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 44 to 47 has observed and held as under: “44. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when actual figures as to what would be the income in future, are available it is not proper to take a nominal hypothetical increase of only 50% for calculating the income. He submitted that though the deceased was receiving Rs. 4004/- per month at the time of death, as per the certificates issued by the employer (produced before High Court), on the basis of pay revisions and increases, his salary would have been Rs. 32,678/- in the year 2005 and there is no reason why the said amount should not be considered as the income at the time of retirement. It was contended that the income which is to form the basis for calculation should not therefore be the average of Rs. 4004/- and Rs. 8008/-, but the average of Rs. 4004/- and Rs. 32,678/-. 45. The assumption of the appellants that the actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the income is not sound. As against the contention of the appellants that if the deceased had been alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay scales, 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. As against the contention of the appellants that if the deceased had been alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay scales, 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. The imponderables in life are too many. Another significant aspect is the non-existence of such evidence at the time of accident. 46. In this case, the accident and death occurred in the year 1988. The award was made by the Tribunal in the year 1993. The High Court decided the appeal in 2007. The pendency of the claim proceedings and appeal for nearly two decades is a fortuitous circumstance and that will not entitle the appellants to rely upon the two pay revisions which took place in the course of the said two decades. If the claim petition filed in 1988 had been disposed of in the year 1988-89 itself and if the appeal had been decided by the High Court in the year 1989-90, then obviously the compensation would have been decided only with reference to the scale of pay applicable at the time of death and not with reference to any future revision in pay scales. 47. If the contention urged by the claimants is accepted, it would lead to the following situation : The claimants only could only rely upon the pay scales in force at the time of the accident, if they are prompt in conducting the case. But if they delay the proceedings, they can rely upon the revised higher pay scales that may come into effect during such pendency. Surely, promptness cannot be punished in this manner. But if they delay the proceedings, they can rely upon the revised higher pay scales that may come into effect during such pendency. Surely, promptness cannot be punished in this manner. We therefore reject the contention that the revisions in pay scale subsequent to the death and before the final hearing should be taken note of for the purpose of determining the income for calculating the compensation.” 5.4 In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme-Court also noted the earlier decisions in the case of Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas reported in (1994)2 SCC 176 as well as in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav reported in (1996)3 SCC 179 and also in the case of Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India reported in (2003)2 SCC 148 and after considering the aforesaid decisions it is observed that in view of the imponderables and uncertainties, as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects is required to be considered, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. At this stage it is required to be noted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) more particularly the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra). It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that a departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. In paras 38 and 39, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra) has observed and held as under: “38. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that a departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. In paras 38 and 39, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra) has observed and held as under: “38. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in Sarla Verma, this Court has noted earlier decisions in Susamma Thomas 1, Sarla Dixit and Abati Bezbaruah and in paragraph 24 of the Report held as under: “24.……In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” 39. The standardisation of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases.” At this stage the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jashuben & Ors. (Supra) is also required to be considered. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the subsequent revision in the scale of pay, the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court awarded the future loss of income, to that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not agree with the same and has observed that the approach of the learned Tribunal and the High Court must be held to be incorrect. In the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically opined that what would have been the income of the deceased on the date of retirement was not a relevant factor and it is impermissible in law to take into consideration the effect of revision in scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1997 or what would have been the scale of pay in 2002. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) as well as Reshmu Kumari (Supra) and in the case of Jashuben & Ors. (Supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the submission on behalf of the claimant that while awarding future economic loss, 100% salary of the deceased at the time of accident was required to be added as future rise in income and while considering the prospective income, cannot be accepted. At this stage it is required to be noted that in catena of subsequent decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) is required to be applied as a rule of thumb. At this stage it is required to be noted that in catena of subsequent decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) is required to be applied as a rule of thumb. 5.5 Now, so far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (Supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant in support of his request and submission to add 100% while considering the future rise in income and while determining the prospective income is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances and having noted that the deceased was aged 28 years and 7½ months old at the time of death, even in normal course he would have served the State Government minimum for 30 years, pay of the deceased would have doubled if he would have continued in services of the State till the date of retirement and therefore, in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was a fit case in which 100% increase in the future income of the deceased should have been allowed. It is required to be noted that in the aforesaid decision in para 32 as such the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that “even if we do not take into consideration the future prospects of promotion to which the deceased was otherwise entitled and the actual pay revisions taken effect from 1st January, 1996 and 1st January, 2006....”. Thus, as such in the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not grant 100% increase in the future income of the deceased by taking into consideration the future prospect of promotion and the actual pay revisions taken w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006. Under the circumstances, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Reshma Kumari (Supra) and even otherwise on facts the aforesaid decision would not be of any assistance to the appellant - claimant. 5.6 Even the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopali and Ors. Under the circumstances, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Reshma Kumari (Supra) and even otherwise on facts the aforesaid decision would not be of any assistance to the appellant - claimant. 5.6 Even the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopali and Ors. (Supra) which has been relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant also will not be of any assistance to the appellant herein - original claimant and/or would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the same as an extraordinary case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted 100% increase while considering the future income. 5.7 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan (Supra) by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such looking to the controversy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case and on facts, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the appellant. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of deceased who was above 50 years of age and was denied the future rise in income considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) that in case of the deceased above 50 years, there shall not be any addition towards future rise in income. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was no controversy like in the present case with respect to applicability of the revision in pay in future and subsequently. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid decision in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan (Supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the issue involved in the present appeal. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid decision in the case of K.R. Madhusudhan (Supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the issue involved in the present appeal. 5.8 Now, so far as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saruyaben (Supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant is concerned, it is required to be noted that the said decision is as such prior to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Reshma Kumari (Supra). As observed herein above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) has specifically held that as a rule of thumb in case of a salaried person having permanent job having age less than 40 years, 50% of the actual salary at the time of accident/death is required to be added while considering future rise in income and in case of the deceased aged above 40 years, 30% is required to be added. As observed herein above the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been subsequently approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari (Supra). 5.9 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the submission made by Shri Modi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant that 100% of the actual salary of the deceased at the time of death was required to be added as future rise in income cannot be accepted. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the present case even while awarding future economic loss the learned Tribunal has as such not deducted the income tax. However, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (Supra) made in para 24, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is not required to be modified on the aforesaid ground. In para 24, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (Supra) has observed as under: “24. In the present case, none of the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the income-tax payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at source by the employer-State Government. In para 24, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (Supra) has observed as under: “24. In the present case, none of the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the income-tax payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at source by the employer-State Government. No such statement was made by Ram Avtar Parikh, PW- 2 an employee of Public Works Department of the State Government who placed on record the Last Pay Certificate and the Service Book of the deceased. The Tribunal or the High Court on perusal of the Last Pay Certificate, have not noticed that the income-tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from the salary of the employee during the said month or Financial Year. In absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per Last Pay Certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income-tax on the estimated income of the deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the Financial Year. The appellants have specifically stated that Assessment Year applicable in the instant case is 1997-98 and not 1996-97 as held by the High Court. They have also taken specific plea that for the Assessment Year 1997-98 the rate of tax on income more than 40,000/- and upto Rs.60,000/- was 15% and not 20% as held by the High Court. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents.” 6. However, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant is justified in making the grievance that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only under the conventional head i.e. under the head of loss of consortium and under the head of loss of expectation of life. As per catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.50,000/- under conventional head i.e. loss of consortium, loss of expectation of life and loss of estate. Thus, to the aforesaid extent, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and present First Appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 6.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal succeeds in part. Thus, to the aforesaid extent, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and present First Appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 6.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 29.06.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1692/1993 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.9,04,800/- with 9% thereon from the date of application till realisation instead of Rs.8,74,800/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Present First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The balance enhanced amount of compensation with interest shall be deposited by the respondent - insurance company with the learned Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from today and on such deposit the learned Tribunal to pay the same to the appellant herein - original claimant by Account Payee Cheque on proper identification and verification by the learned Tribunal itself. Appeal partly allowed.