JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) passed in MACP No. 183 of 1994, by which, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum ofRs.6,52,000/- to the original claimants towards compensation for the death of deceased Badarbhai , the original opponent no.3 insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident has preferred present Appeal. 2. Shri Nair, learned advocate for the appellant herein - original opponent no.4 has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awardingRs.6,30,000/- under the head of loss of dependency/future loss of income considering the loss of dependency atRs.3500/- per month. 2.1. It is submitted that admittedly as per the salary certificate produced at Exh.55, the salary/income of the deceased at the time of accident wasRs.2321/- per month. It is submitted that therefore, adding 50% towards future rise in income as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 and thereafter deducting towards personal expenses of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future loss of income. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. No other submissions have been made. 3. On the other hand, Shri Prajapati, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the evidence on record i.e. Exh.56 which states that if the deceased would not have died he would have received Rs.8047/- per month in future (at the time of retirement) no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in considering the prospective income at Rs.5200/- per month. It is submitted that even learned Tribunal as such erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that considering number of dependents, learned Tribunal ought to have deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is further submitted by Shri Prajapati, learned advocate for the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awardingRs.20,000/- only under the conventional head. It is submitted that the claimants were entitled toRs.50,000/- under the conventional head. It is further submitted by Shri Prajapati, learned advocate for the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awardingRs.20,000/- only under the conventional head. It is submitted that the claimants were entitled toRs.50,000/- under the conventional head. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal by submitting that amount awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be just compensation. 4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time of accident in the year 1993 the deceased was serving as a work charge assistant in the Irrigation Department of the State Government. As per the salary certificate produced at Exh.55, the salary of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.2321/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the age of the deceased was 39 years, 50% of the aforesaid was required to be added towards future rise in income. However, the learned Tribunal has arrived at prospective income at Rs.5200/- after considering the salary which the deceased might have earned in future i.e. in the year 2004. However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Sarla Verma (supra) the aforesaid method adopted by the learned Tribunal cannot be accepted. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) as such 50% of the actual income at the time of accident was required to be added towards future rise in income. However, the learned Tribunal had as such committed the error in deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. However, looking to the number of dependents ¼th was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased (even excluding other claimants/sister and brothers of the deceased). The claimants shall also be entitled toRs.50,000/- under conventional head instead of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The claimant shall also be entitled toRs.2500/- toward funeral expenses. Thus, considering the above, the claimants shall be entitled to totalRs.5,38,500/- instead ofRs.6,52,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. To the aforesaid extent, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5. The claimant shall also be entitled toRs.2500/- toward funeral expenses. Thus, considering the above, the claimants shall be entitled to totalRs.5,38,500/- instead ofRs.6,52,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. To the aforesaid extent, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in para. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the appellant is entitled to total sum of Rs.5,38,500/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realization. Present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. It goes without saying that any amount excess to the aforesaid deposited by the appellant insurance company, the same shall be returned to the appellant either from the Fixed Deposits lying with the Tribunal and/or from the original claimants with accrued interest thereon. With this, present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Appeal allowed.