JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Court No.17, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.28/1999 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition preferred by the original claimants and has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,85,000/from the original opponent Nos.1 and 4 including the appellant herein with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization, the appellant herein-original opponent No.4 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the present First Appeal. That the original claimants have also preferred X-Objections in the aforesaid First Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2.0 That in a vehicular accident which occurred on 22.08.1998 at about 2.30 hours in the noon, the deceased Prashant along with his friends was traveling in Maruti Van No.GJ1AR798 and going from Mahemdabad to Nathdwara for pilgrimage. That when the said maruti van was passing near village Karanpur Patiya on National Highway No.8 and after passing Himatnagar, at that time, one luxury bus No.GJ1X9400 belonging to original opponent No.1 came from the opposite side with full speed in rash and negligent manner and while overtaking a vehicle ahead of it, came on wrong side and dashed with the maruti van causing serious fatal injuries to the passengers traveling in it. In the said accident deceased Prashant also sustained grievous injuries due to which he died while on the way to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Therefore, the original claimants - parents and the brother of the deceased Prashant filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs.24,50,000/- towards compensation under different heads for the death of deceased Prashant, from all the opponents. 2.1 It was a specific case on behalf of the original claimants that the driver of the luxury bus involved in the accident was sole negligent for the vehicular accident due to which deceased Prashant died. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 23 years of age and was doing the business of graphics, designing, printing job work and paper stationery supply in the name and style of Prime Prints and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 23 years of age and was doing the business of graphics, designing, printing job work and paper stationery supply in the name and style of Prime Prints and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the original claimants claimed a total sum of Rs.24,50,000/- under different heads, towards compensation for the death of deceased. 2.2 That though served nobody appeared on behalf of original opponent Nos.1 to 3. That the appellant herein - original opponent No.4 - insurance company filed the written statement at Exh.28 wherein they categorically denied all the averments and allegations made in the claim petition. It was also contended that the accident in question occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of luxury bus. Lastly, it was contended that claim made by the claimants even otherwise is highly excessive, exorbitant and speculative. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the claim petition. 2.3 That on appreciation of evidence more particularly documentary evidences on record such as FIR at Exh.42, panchnama of place of accident at Exh.43 etc. and considering the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle who can be said to be the best eyewitness to the accident in question has not stepped into witness box in order to testify the contributory negligence on the part of the other side, by drawing adverse inference against the driver of the luxury bus, the learned Tribunal held the original opponent No.1 - driver of the luxury bus involved in the accident sole negligent. 2.4 That on appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, on record more particularly the deposition of the father of the deceased who was examined at Exh.65 and the deposition of one Dilipbhai Ranchhodlal Shah, a Chartered Accountant who was examined at Exh.66 and the documentary evidence on record produced at Exhs.59 to 72 such as profit and loss account, balance sheet and audit report for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1997, 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 and 01.04.1998 to 31.10.1998 and other documentary evidences on record and considering the educational qualifications of the deceased, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.5,000/- - per month and thereafter adding 50% towards future rise in income, considered the prospective income at Rs.7,500/per month and thereafter deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, considered the loss of dependency benefit to the claimants at Rs.60,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 16, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,60,000/- to the original claimants towards loss of dependency/future loss of income. That thereafter the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the conventional heads and Rs.5,000/- - towards the funeral expenses and thus, has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization. 2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding a total sum of Rs.9,85,000/to the original claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of application till realization, the appellant herein - original opponent No.4 - insurance company has preferred the present First Appeal. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have also preferred the X-Objections. 3.0 Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein - insurance company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, while awarding future economic loss to the original claimants. It is submitted that as the deceased was a bachelor and the original claimants were the parents and brother, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that as the deceased was a bachelor and the original claimants were the parents and brother, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased. In support of her above submissions, she has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 . 3.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - insurance company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 16 while awarding future economic loss. It is vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 10 considering the age of the parents/claimants. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal to the aforesaid extent. 4.0 Shri Jigar Gadhavi, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants. In support of his submissions to dismiss the present appeal preferred by the insurance company and to allow the X Objections preferred by the original claimants, it is vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the multiplier considering the age of the deceased. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 23 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 while awarding future economic loss. 4.1 It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only under the conventional heads of loss of love and affection and loss to the estate. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded atleast Rs.50,000/- under the conventional heads i.e. loss of love and affection and loss to the estate etc. Shri Gadhavi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- - towards funeral expenses. Shri Gadhavi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding only Rs.5,000/- - towards funeral expenses. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ashwinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr. reported in 2014 ACJ 2648 , it is requested to award Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is further submitted by Shri Gadhavi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. It is submitted that as the accident took place in the year 1998 and the rate of interest prevailing at the time of accident i.e. in the year 1998 and the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. However, Shri Gadhavi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants is not in a position to dispute and is not disputing that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), as the deceased was a bachelor and the original claimants were parents and brother, only ½ was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of ?rd deducted by the learned Tribunal. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeal preferred by the appellant - insurance company and allow the X-Objections preferred by the original claimants. 4.2 Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and we have scanned and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, oral as well as documentary. 4.3 At the outset it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and award and on appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the luxury bus involved in the accident - original opponent No.1 sole negligent. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the original opponent No.1 - driver of the luxury bus involved in the accident sole negligent is not challenged. Therefore, the present First Appeal as well as the X-Objections are on quantum of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the original opponent No.1 - driver of the luxury bus involved in the accident sole negligent is not challenged. Therefore, the present First Appeal as well as the X-Objections are on quantum of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4.4 That by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,60,000/- under the head of loss of dependency/future economic loss assessing/determining the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.5,000/- - per month. Considering the documentary evidences on record produced at Exhs.59 to 72 such as profit and loss account, balance-sheet and audit report for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1997, 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 and 01.04.1998 to 31.10.1998, the income tax returns and the deposition of the father of the deceased as well as Chartered Accountant, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.5,000/- - per month. That looking to the educational qualifications and the young age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. However, thereafter, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in deducting ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. As the deceased was a bachelor and the original claimants were parents and brother as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), only ½ was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of ?rd deducted by the learned Tribunal. However, at the same time the learned Tribunal has also committed an error in applying the multiplier of 16. As the deceased at the time of accident was aged 23 years, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18. 4.5 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellant - insurance company that the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier considering the age of the claimants and not the age of the deceased is concerned, identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 . Under the circumstances, to the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and the multiplier of 18 is required to be applied. 4.6 The learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.20,000/- under the conventional heads i.e. for loss of expectation of life etc. Considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 1998 and as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on the issue, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- in all under the head of loss of expectancy of life, loss to the estate, loss of love and affection etc. 4.7 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the original claimants that the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that accident occurred in the year 1998 and in absence of any other cogent evidence with respect to the actual expenses and considering the market price prevailing at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (Supra) as such in the aforesaid decision, no absolute proposition of law has been down that in each and every case the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the accident took place in the year 2002 and in the present case the accident had taken place in the year 1998. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Even the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and for the accident which occurred in the year 1998, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. 5.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the First Appeal preferred by the appellant - insurance company is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and even the X-Objections preferred by the original claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the result the present First Appeal No.1301/2009 preferred by the appellant - insurance company and the X-Objections preferred by the original claimants are hereby partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Court No.17, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.28/1999 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.11,35,000/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of application till realization, from the original opponent Nos.1 and 4 including the appellant - insurance company. The appellant insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation as per the present judgment and order with the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, the learned Tribunal to pay the same to the original claimants by account payee cheque after due verification. No costs. Order accordingly.