JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 24-5-2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Presiding Officer, FTC No.3, Vadodara, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal' for short) in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.490 of 1994 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,89,950/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased-Chandulal @ Chandrakant Hansraj Shah along with interest @ 7.5.% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization, the appellants herein-original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal. 2. Facts leading to filing of present First Appeals in nutshell are that in a vehicular accident which took place on 27-10-1993 at about 2 p.m., on Baroda-Por Road, the deceased Chandulal, who, at the relevant time was driving the motor cycle, met with an accident with the truck which, at the relevant time, was being driven by the original opponent No.1 and he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 2.1 It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the accident occurred because of sole negligence on the part of driver of the truck-original opponent No.1. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 30 years/less than 30 years and he was a businessman, industrialist and investor. It was further the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased was also doing service and was also getting commission. According to the original claimants, the deceased was a partner in one M/s Bhaval Metal Industries of Vapi and was also getting income from M/s Super Metal Manufacturing Company and M/s Dilip Steel India Ltd. Therefore, according to the original claimants, in all, the deceased was getting an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased had invested his money in M/s Super Metal Manufacturing Company; M/s Dudhani Metals and M/s Naresh Steels and was also getting interest from his father's capital invested in M/s Super Metal Manufacturing Company. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased had invested his money in M/s Super Metal Manufacturing Company; M/s Dudhani Metals and M/s Naresh Steels and was also getting interest from his father's capital invested in M/s Super Metal Manufacturing Company. According to the original claimants, the deceased had also invested money in National Savings Certificates and had also taken insurance policies. According to the original claimants, the deceased was getting salary of about Rs.3,500/- per month from M/s Dilip Steels and more than Rs.1,500/- from M/s Super Steel. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased had also started another manufacturing unit in the name and style of M/s Super Metal Manufacturing Company at Por, Vadodara, and in the said business, the share of his wife was 50% and for the said project, the deceased and the original claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) were going to invest huge amount of Rs.32,00,000/-. According to the original claimants, if the business would have started according to the schedule within a year or two, they would have earned a net amount of Rs.3.00 to Rs.4.00 lakhs per annum by way of income from that industry. 2.2 The claim petition was opposed by opponent No.3- insurance company by filing written statement at Exh.18. The insurance company denied all the allegations and averments made in the claim petition including the time, date and place of accident as well as involvement of the vehicle, age and income of the deceased at the time of accident. 2.3 The learned Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.26. 2.4 The original claimants led the following documentary as well as oral evidences : Documentary evidences: Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 2.3 The learned Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.26. 2.4 The original claimants led the following documentary as well as oral evidences : Documentary evidences: Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Dawakhana Vardhi 23 2 Panchnama of scene of offence 24 3 P.M.Note of deceased Chandubhai 25 4 Original letter written to Gujarat State Finance by the deceased Chandrakant 48 5 True copy of deed of partnership of M/s Bhaval Metal Industries 30 6 True copy of income tax return of 1990-91 of the deceased 31 7 True copy of statement of 1990-91 of the deceased 32 8 True copy of balance sheet of March, 1990 of the deceased 33 9 True copy of Income Tax Return of 1991-92 of the deceased 34 10 True copy of statement of 1991-92 of the deceased 35 11 True copy of balance sheet of March, 1991 of the deceased 36 12 True copy of Income Tax Return of 1992-93 of the deceased 37 13 True copy of statement of 1992-93 of the deceased 38 14 True copy of balance sheet of March, 1992 of the deceased 39 15 True copy of Income Tax Return of 1993-94 of the deceased 40 16 True copy of statement of 1993-94 of the deceased 41 17 True copy of balance sheet of March, 1993 of the deceased 42 18 Original letter of commission paid by Jayant Metal to deceased Chandrakant H. Shah 43 19 Original letter of commission paid by Jaybharat Metal Industries to deceased Chandrakant 44 20 Original letter of commission paid by Madras Metal to deceased Chandrakant 45 21 Original receipt of premium paid for insurance by the deceased Chandrakant 46 22 Original receipt of premium paid for insurance by the deceased Chandrakant 47 Oral evidences: Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Affidavit-cum-deposition of applicant No.1 Champaben 22 2 Deposition of Suresh Hansraj Shah 29 3 Affidavit-cum-deposition of Panchal Dhiren 50 3.4 On appreciation of evidences on record, the learned Tribunal has held the original opponent No.1-driver of motor truck involved in the accident sole negligent. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Affidavit-cum-deposition of applicant No.1 Champaben 22 2 Deposition of Suresh Hansraj Shah 29 3 Affidavit-cum-deposition of Panchal Dhiren 50 3.4 On appreciation of evidences on record, the learned Tribunal has held the original opponent No.1-driver of motor truck involved in the accident sole negligent. 3.5 On appreciation of evidence, more particularly, the Income Tax Returns of the last three years filed by the deceased, the learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.26,600/- per annum and thereafter, after deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15 considering the age of the deceased at 32 years as mentioned in the hospital vardhi, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,65,950/- towards future loss of income. Thereafter, awarding further Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and consortium and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation expenses, by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,89,950/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal. 4. Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of original claimants, has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.26,600/- per annum. It is submitted that while assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documentary evidences on record, more particularly, the fact that the deceased had applied for the loan of Rs.32.00 lakhs from GSFC which was sanctioned and the deceased was about to install/erect a new factory. 4.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that even while awarding loss of dependency/future economic loss, the learned Tribunal has not considered the future rise in income at all. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged about 30 years and considering his prospects and/or potentiality to earn more in future, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 30% towards future rise in income and ought to have arrived at the prospective income and thereby ought to have awarded future economic loss accordingly. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged about 30 years and considering his prospects and/or potentiality to earn more in future, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 30% towards future rise in income and ought to have arrived at the prospective income and thereby ought to have awarded future economic loss accordingly. 4.2 It is further submitted by Mr.Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the age of the deceased at 32 years. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased at the time of accident at 32 years on the basis of the age mentioned in the hospital vardhi only. It is submitted that however, the learned Tribunal has not considered the date of birth of the deceased mentioned in the life insurance policy/policies produced at Exhs.46 and 47 in which the date of birth of the deceased was mentioned as 10-2-1962. It is submitted that therefore, at the time of accident, the deceased was less than 30 years of age and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009)6 Supreme Court Cases page 121, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 17 instead of 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal. 4.3 It is further submitted by Mr.Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding a total sum of Rs.20,000/- only under the head of loss of love and affection and loss of estate. It is submitted that as such, the claimants shall be entitled to at least Rs.50,000/- in all under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. 4.4 It is further submitted by Mr.Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that even otherwise the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum. It is submitted that as the accident occurred in the year 1993 and as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. 4.5 No other submissions have been made. It is submitted that as the accident occurred in the year 1993 and as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. 4.5 No other submissions have been made. 4.6 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma(supra), it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. of the vehicle involved in the accident. Under the circumstances, the matter is proceeded ex parte against the respondent No.3. 6. Ms. Joshi, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. 6.1 Ms. Joshi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.26,600/- p.a. It is submitted that income of the deceased at the time of accident is assessed by the learned Tribunal considering the income tax returns of the last three years from the date of accident. However, she has left it to the Court to apply appropriate multiplier considering age of the deceased as below 30 years and to award the amount of compensation under the conventional heads and rate of interest considering the rate of interest prevailing at the relevant time of accident. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and re-appreciated the entire evidences on record. 8. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and re-appreciated the entire evidences on record. 8. By impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded future economic loss assessing income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.26,600/- p.a. It appears that while assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has considered the income tax returns of the last three years from the date of accident and thereafter taking the mean income of the last three years, the learned Tribunal has considered the average income of the deceased at Rs.26,599/- p.a. It is required to be noted that except the aforesaid, the original claimants have not produced any cogent evidence to prove the income from other partnership business/partnership firms as contended. It also appears from the income tax returns of the last three years that main income of the deceased was interest on the investment in the partnership firm/firms. Even considering the income tax returns of the deceased of the last three years, it appears that the income of the deceased in all these three years had remained static. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in not awarding any amount towards future rise in income. The submission of the learned advocate appearing for the claimants that the deceased was to start another business/factory for which a loan of Rs.32.00 lakhs was sanctioned by GSFC and if the deceased had not died, he would have started the business/factory and would have earned some profit is on presumption and assumption. It is required to be noted that even after sanction of loan, the deceased during his life time did not actually withdraw the amount sanctioned by GSFC and in fact, GSFC has written a letter that if the sanctioned amount of loan is not withdrawn, the same would be lapsed. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the income tax returns of the last three years and taking the mean/average of the same, when the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.26,600/- p.a., it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the income tax returns of the last three years and taking the mean/average of the same, when the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.26,600/- p.a., it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. Therefore, even on re-appreciation of entire evidence on record, we confirm the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in assessing income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.26,600/- p.a. Deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would arrive at Rs.17,730/- p.a. It appears that the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 (considering the age of the deceased at 32 years) in awarding future economic loss. However, it is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased at the time of accident at 32 years solely on the basis of entry mentioned in the hospital vardhi. However, considering the life insurance policies produced at Exhs.46 and 47 in which the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 10-2-1962 and as the accident had occurred on 27-10-1993, the age of the deceased can be considered below 30 years and therefore, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier of 17 is required to be applied instead of 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.3,01,410/- towards loss of dependency instead of Rs.2,65,950/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 8.1 The learned Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding Rs.20,000/- only towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. Considering the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, as the accident occurred in the year 1993, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.50,000/- in all under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss to estate and loss of love and affection. 8.2 The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation instead of 7.5% p.a. as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. 8.2 The claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation instead of 7.5% p.a. as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present First Appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the appellants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,52,410/- from the original opponents more particularly the respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon from the date of application till realization. The balance/enhanced amount of compensation to be deposited by the respondent No.3 herein-Insurance Company in the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today and on such deposit, the learned Tribunal to pay the said amount to the original claimants by Account Payee Cheque on proper identification and verification. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 10. Before parting with the present judgment, this Court is constrained to observe that so far as the respondent No.3-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is concerned, in many cases, it is found that there is no proper representation by the respondent No.3- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and even nobody is appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and the matters are required to be proceeded further ex-parte as there is no assistance at all. Under the circumstances, Registry is directed to send copy of the present order to Deputy General Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Navjeevan Building, Navjeevan Post, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, so that some corrective measures may be taken at their side. Appeal partly allowed.