ORAL JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J. [1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) dated 12.05.2006 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.974/2002 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,03,000/to the original claimants towards compensation under different heads for the death of deceased Himmatlal Bhaichand Jodhani, the appellants herein – original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. [2.0] That in a vehicular accident which took place on 07.12.2002 the deceased who at the relevant time was on his scooter, died because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the original opponent No.1 – driver of the Matador involved in the accident. Therefore, the original claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs.22,40,000/towards the compensation under different heads for the death of deceased. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that as such the driver of the matador involved in the accident was rash and negligent and had dashed the scooter which at the relevant time was driven by the deceased due to which the deceased sustained serious injuries and thereafter succumbed to the injuries. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 60 years, he was a doctor having the degree of MBBS since 1968 and that he served as a Medical Officer in different hospitals at Mehsana and Ahmedabad. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that in the year 1976 the deceased was running the clinic at his residence and thereafter in 199596 he was serving as Medical Officer in Jivraj Mehta Hopital; in Thakarshi Charitable Trust between 1996 to 2000 and in the SAL Hospital at Ahmedabad and was earning Rs.10,000/while he was serving as Medical Officer at SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that lastly the deceased was serving as a Medical Officer at Chandrala Sarvajanik Hospital from 08.08.2002 and was getting salary of Rs.14,000/per month. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that lastly the deceased was serving as a Medical Officer at Chandrala Sarvajanik Hospital from 08.08.2002 and was getting salary of Rs.14,000/per month. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that as and when the deceased was coming to home on leave, he was earning Rs.4,000/per month while running the clinic at his residence. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of accident, the income of the deceased was Rs.18,000/per month. [2.1] That the claim petition was opposed by the original opponent No.1 – driver of the Matador involved in the written statement at Exh.16. The claim petition was also opposed by the original opponent No.2 – insurance company of the Matador involved in the accident by filing the written statement at Exh.11. That the learned Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.24. [2.2] That the original claimants led the following oral as well as documentary evidences to prove the negligence of the original opponent No.1 – driver of the accident involved in the accident as well as to prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Oral Evidence Sr. No. Details of the evidence Exh.No. 1. Bhartiben Wd/o. Himmatlal Jodhani – original claimant No.1 – widow of the deceased 25 2. Rakesh Manilal Koshti – eye witness to the accident 35 3. Rajesh Maganbhai Patel to prove the income – Manager of Patel Kachrabhai Chhaganlal Trust, Chandrala 36 Documentary Evidence Sr. No. Details of the documentary evidence Exh.No. 1. Copy of the FIR 29 2. Copy of the panchnama of place of accident 30 3. Copy of the MBBS certificate of the deceased 31 4. School leaving certificate 32 5. P.M. report and the inquest panchnama 48 6. Resolution of Patel Kachrabhai Chhaganlal Trust resolving to appoint the deceased as Medical Officer in the hospital run by the Trust and salary registers 39 to 44 6. Resolution of Patel Kachrabhai Chhaganlal Trust resolving to appoint the deceased as Medical Officer in the hospital run by the Trust and salary registers 39 to 44 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal held the original opponent No.1 – driver of the Matador involved in the accident sole negligent. Resolution of Patel Kachrabhai Chhaganlal Trust resolving to appoint the deceased as Medical Officer in the hospital run by the Trust and salary registers 39 to 44 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal held the original opponent No.1 – driver of the Matador involved in the accident sole negligent. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the original opponent No.1 – driver of the Matador involved in the accident is not challenged by any of the original opponents. [2.3] On appreciation of evidence and considering the documentary evidence on record the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.8000/per month (net) and adding further 50% of the same towards future rise in income the learned Tribunal considered the prospective income at Rs.12,000/per month and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of 5, the learned Tribunal has determined and awarded the loss of dependency at Rs.4,80,000/and awarding further sum of Rs.10,000/under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/under the head of loss of consortium and awarding further sum of Rs.3,000/towards funeral expenses by impugned judgment and award has awarded a total sum of Rs.5,03,000/with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. [2.4] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants herein – original claimants have preferred the present appeal to enhance the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. [3.0] Shri Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants herein – original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.4,80,000/towards the loss of dependency. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.8,000/per month, while determining the loss of dependency. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.8,000/per month, while determining the loss of dependency. It is submitted that considering the documentary evidences on record more particularly the documentary evidences at Exhs.39 to 44 and the deposition of the witnesses examined at Exh.36 and the deposition of the original claimant No.1 – widow of the deceased was examined at Exh.25 and when it has come on record that at the time of accident the income of the deceased from the Charitable Trust, Chandrala was Rs.14,000/per month, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/per month. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.14,000/per month and ought to have accordingly assessed / determined the dependency. [3.1] It is further submitted by Shri Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 5 while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 126 and as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 60 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 9. It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.10,000/only under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/under the head of loss of consortium. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded atleast Rs.50,000/under the head of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium etc. i.e. under the conventional heads. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent and modified the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. [4.0] Present appeal is opposed by Shri Ruturaj Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company of the Matador involved in the accident. i.e. under the conventional heads. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent and modified the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. [4.0] Present appeal is opposed by Shri Ruturaj Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company of the Matador involved in the accident. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case as such the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs.4,80,000/towards loss of dependency. It is submitted that as such no cogent documentary evidences have been produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased at the time of accident such as income tax returns and/or even books of accounts of the Trust where deceased was last serving and/or any other supporting documentary evidence. It is submitted that still the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/per month. It is submitted that even the learned Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards income tax. It is further submitted that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income while considering the prospective income. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 60 years as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra), nothing was required to be added towards the future rise in income. It is submitted that as the accident took place in the year 2002, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs.10,000/only under the head of loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/under the head of loss of consortium. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation which is not required to be interfered by this Court. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation which is not required to be interfered by this Court. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal. [5.0] In reply to the submissions made by Shri Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not deducting any amount towards income tax while assessing the income for the purpose of the loss of dependency, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that while deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, it would include the deduction of the income tax also. It is submitted that the deduction of income tax would be towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, while deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the same would also include the deduction towards income tax. It is submitted that therefore no amount towards income tax is separately required to be deducted while assessing the income of the deceased while awarding the loss of dependency. Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has also relied upon one certificate dated 07.10.2002 issued by the Manager Personnel of SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad in support of his submissions that even in the month of July, 2002, the deceased was serving as a Medical Officer with the SAL Hospital at the monthly salary of Rs.10,000/. [5.1] To the aforesaid Shri Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naynaben Wd/o. Bharatkumar Bhalchandra Patel & Ors. rendered in First Appeal No.481/2001 that cross objection in support of his submission that while considering the net income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted atleast 10% towards income tax. Shri Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company has also relied upon paras 20, 24 and 32 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra). Shri Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company has also relied upon paras 20, 24 and 32 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra). He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma and Others vs. Karam Singh and Others reported in (2010)12 SCC 378 (Para 7) in support of his submissions that while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of dependency and deducting 1/3rd / 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the case may be, only the net income which the deceased would have contributed to the family i.e. the actual salary – statutory deduction towards the income tax, professional tax is required to be considered. It is submitted that therefore while arriving at a net income, statutory deductions under the income tax / professional tax is required to be deducted separately first and only thereafter the net income is required to be considered as the said net income would be contributed by the deceased to the family and after arriving at the net income, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is required to be made. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the certificate 07.10.2002 issued by Manager Personnel of the SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad, which has been relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants is concerned, Shri Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company has vehemently submitted to discard the same by submitting that the said certificate has not been proved and not even exhibited. It is submitted that to prove the above document nobody has been examined from the SAL Hospital, on behalf of the claimants. [6.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, oral as well as documentary. [6.1] Having heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties and considering the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, it appears that the original claimants claimed exorbitant amount by way of compensation and made a false claim about the income of the deceased, not supported by any cogent evidence. [6.1] Having heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties and considering the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, it appears that the original claimants claimed exorbitant amount by way of compensation and made a false claim about the income of the deceased, not supported by any cogent evidence. At the outset it is required to be noted that in the claim petition and even in the deposition of the original claimant No.1 – widow of the deceased the case on behalf of the original claimants that deceased was MBBS doctor since 1968 and he served as Medical Officer at Mehsana and Ahmedabad. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that in the year 1976, the deceased was running the clinic at his residence and that in the year 199596 he served as Medical Officer at Jivraj Hospital, Ahmedabad and thereafter between 1996 to 2000 as Medical Officer at Thakarshi Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad. In the deposition the original claimant No.1 – widow of the deceased stated that the deceased was serving as a Medical Officer at SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad between the year 1996 to 2001 at the monthly salary of Rs.10,000/and thereafter as a Medical Officer at Chandrala Sarvajanik Hospital from 08.08.2002 at the monthly salary of Rs.14,000/. No evidence has been produced by the original claimants to prove the above except the pay registers of the hospital at Chandrala of the months August, September and October, 2002 (Exhs.40 to 44). To prove that the deceased was serving as a Medical Officer with the SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad between the year 1996 to 2001 at the monthly salary of Rs.10,000/, the claimants produced one certificate signed by Manager Personnel, SAL Hospital and Medical Institute, Ahmedabad dated 07.10.2002 at mark 22/6. However, it is required to be noted that the said certificate is as such not been exhibited as the same has not been proved by examining any employee and/or even Manager Personnel of SAL Hospital, Ahmedabad who issued the said certificate. Even considering the said certificate, in the said certificate upon which the reliance has been placed by the claimants and which has been produced by the claimants, it is mentioned that the deceased was serving as a Medical Officer between 01.03.2002 to 09.07.2002 at monthly gross salary of Rs.10,000/. Even considering the said certificate, in the said certificate upon which the reliance has been placed by the claimants and which has been produced by the claimants, it is mentioned that the deceased was serving as a Medical Officer between 01.03.2002 to 09.07.2002 at monthly gross salary of Rs.10,000/. Thus, the claimants came out with a got up case/story that the deceased was serving as Medical Officer at SAL Hospital between 1996 to 2001 at the monthly salary of Rs.10,000/. Thus, the claimants had not come with clean hands. Apart from the aforesaid even the case on behalf of the original claimants relying upon the documents produced at Exhs.41 to 44 that deceased was serving as a Medical Officer at Kachrabhai Chhaganlal Patel Sarvajanik Hospital, Chandrala at the monthly salary of Rs.14,000/also cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that as such no appointment order appointing the deceased as a Medical Officer at Kachrabhai Chhaganlal Patel Sarvajanik Hospital, Chandrala is forthcoming. It is required to be noted that books of accounts of the Trust is not produced. Even considering the extract of the salary register for the months of August, September, October and November, 2002 (Exhs.41 to 44) it appears that in the month of August 2002 to October, 2002 the salary is alleged to have been paid to the deceased was Rs.13,000/per month and in the month of November 2002 the deceased is alleged to have been paid the monthly salary at Rs.14,000/. Such a rise within two to three months is not explained. As observed herein above the claimants have failed to establish and prove that the salary of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.14,000/per month by leading cogent evidence. Under the circumstances, case on behalf of the claimants that the deceased at the time of accident was earning Rs.14,000/per month cannot be accepted. [6.2] However, considering the fact that the deceased was MBBS since 1968 and at the time of accident was aged 60 years, meaning thereby he was having sufficient experience, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased at the time of accident can be considered at least at Rs.10,000/per month (gross income). [6.2] However, considering the fact that the deceased was MBBS since 1968 and at the time of accident was aged 60 years, meaning thereby he was having sufficient experience, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased at the time of accident can be considered at least at Rs.10,000/per month (gross income). Even the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has stated at the Bar that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.10,000/per month. Therefore, the gross income of the deceased at the time of accident is assessed and determined at Rs.10,000/per month. As the deceased was aged 60 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra), nothing was required to be added towards future rise in income. After deducting 10% towards statutory deductions such as income tax etc., the net income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,000/per month and thereafter after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs.6,000/per month. [6.3] The submissions on behalf of the original claimants that while making 1/3rd deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased, it would include the statutory deduction such as income tax etc. and therefore, the income tax is not required to be separately deducted and 1/3rd deduction would include the statutory deductions such as income tax etc. It is submitted that payment of income tax can be said to be personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would include the statutory deduction such as income tax. The aforesaid has no substance and cannot be accepted. As per the catena of decisions while awarding the future economic loss / loss of dependency and while considering the dependency, the net salary / income of the deceased is required to be considered and not the gross salary / income. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra), in para 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that generally the actual income of the deceased after deducting income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra), in para 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that generally the actual income of the deceased after deducting income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. Therefore, while awarding the compensation under the head of future economic loss, only the actual income at the time of death (net income) is required to be taken into consideration. It is required to be noted that while awarding the compensation under the head of future economic loss/loss of dependency, the Court is required to consider the loss sustained by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, which the deceased would have contributed to the family. Therefore, whatever the income of the deceased after statutory deductions like income tax etc. can be said to have been contributed to the family and the same can be said to be the net income which is required to be considered while awarding the future economic loss. Therefore, while assessing the loss of dependency the net income of the deceased at the time of accident after statutory deductions like income tax, professional tax etc. which can be said to be the net income is required to be considered and thereafter deducting 1/3rd and/or 1/4th as the case may be looking to the number of dependents, is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. [6.4] The above view which we are taking is as such supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (Supra) as well as Shyamwati Sharma and Others (Supra). In the case of Shyamwati Sharma and Others (Supra) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Court deducted 30% from the salary towards income tax etc. and arrived at the net monthly income and thereafter deducting 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, arrived at the contribution to the family. The same was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment and order passed by the High Court and deducted 1/3rd from the net income after deducting the income tax etc. from the gross income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The same was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment and order passed by the High Court and deducted 1/3rd from the net income after deducting the income tax etc. from the gross income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid, loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,000/per month (after deducting 10% towards the income tax from the gross income which is assessed at Rs.10,000/per month and thereafter after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased). As the deceased was aged 60 years and as observed herein above and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others (Supra), nothing was required to be added in future rise of income. As the deceased was aged 60 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others (Supra), multiplier of 9 was required to be applied instead of 5 applied by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,48,000/towards loss of dependency/future loss of income. [6.5] Even the amount of Rs.20,000/awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional heads i.e. Rs.10,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/towards loss of love and affection can be said to be on lower side. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu Rout & Anr. Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors. reported in 2013(11) Scale 112 wherein for the accident in the year 2004, the Apex Court awarded Rs.50,000/towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of consortium, in the present case the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/in all towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and loss to the estate. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. [6.6] The sum and substance of the above discussion would be that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent and the claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.7,01,000/in all with interest thereon as awarded by the learned Tribunal. [7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. [7.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.974/2002 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that appellants herein – original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.7,01,000/with the interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal with proportionate cost. Present First Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.