JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Though the First Appeal is notified today on board for orders as respondents nos.1 and 4 herein are unserved (owners of the vehicle), however as the dispute is in a very narrow compass and Shri Sunil Parikh, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company for both the vehicles, the present First Appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.2104/1996 in so far as awarding a total sum of Rs.12,45,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the application up to December, 2000 and, thereafter, at the rate of 7% from realisation with proportionate cost, the appellants original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. 3. In a vehicular accident, which took place on 2/11/1996 at about 5:30 a.m. between a Metador and Motor Truck at Sanand-Viramgam Highway, the deceased-Pravinchandra Shah, who at the relevant time was serving as Electrical Engineer in a private Company aged 51 years, died and, therefore, the appellants-original claimants filed the Claim Petition before the learned tribunal claiming Rs.30 lakhs towards compensation for the death of the deceased. On appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and, thereafter, adding 50% towards the future rise in the income and deducting ?rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned tribunal has considered the dependency at Rs.10,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 10 has awarded a total sum of Rs.12 lakhs towards the future economic loss and, thereafter, after adding Rs.25,000/- for expectation of life, Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses in all has awarded Rs.12,45,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 3.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, the appellants-original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal for enhancing the amount of compensation. 4. Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in considering the dependency at Rs.10,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, the appellants-original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal for enhancing the amount of compensation. 4. Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-original claimants has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in considering the dependency at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that in the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased, which was produced at Exh.40 in which it was specifically mentioned that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.12,700/- per month, despite the same, the learned tribunal has considered the dependency at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted by Shri Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-original claimants that the learned tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 10. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeal. No other submissions have been made. 5. Shri Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company of both the vehicles involved in the accident has initially tried to oppose the present First Appeal. However, after considering the deposition of original claimant no.1-widow of the deceased and the certificate issued by the employer of the deceased at Exh.40, he has failed to satisfy the Court how the learned tribunal is justified in considering the net salary of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and consequently considered the dependency at Rs.10,000/- per month. He has also fairly conceded that as such the learned tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 11 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . He has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards the future rise in income. It is submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal should have added maximum 30% towards the future rise in income. Making the above submissions, it is requested to pass an appropriate order. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. It is submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal should have added maximum 30% towards the future rise in income. Making the above submissions, it is requested to pass an appropriate order. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the entire evidence on record, which has been placed before the Court by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants for the perusal of the Court and we have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 6.1. Considering the deposition of the original claimants at Exh.38 it was the specific case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased was getting approximately Rs.11,000/- per month. No pay slip is placed on record. However, the certificate issued by the employer of the deceased is produced at Exh.40, which suggests that the deceased was getting Rs.12,700/- per month as gross income. In the cross examination of the said witness a suggestion was made that income of the deceased was not Rs.11,000/- per month. To that there is a specific denial by the witness and, therefore, as such, it was the specific case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased was getting Rs.11,000/- per month. 6.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the net salary/income of the deceased at the time of the accident can be considered at Rs.11,000/- per month and, thereafter, adding 30% towards the future rise in the income, the dependency would come to Rs.14,300/- per month and, thereafter deducting ?rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the dependency for the purpose of awarding future economic loss to the original claimants would be Rs.9,534/- per month. As the deceased was aged 51 years considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors (Supra) the multiplier of 11 is required to be applied and consequently applying the multiplier of 11 the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.12,58,488/- towards future economic loss and adding a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards expectation of life, Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.13,03,488/- with 9% interest from the date of the application up to December, 2000 and thereafter at the rate of 7.5% till realization. The present First Appeal is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present First Appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.2104/1996 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.13,03,488/- from the Insurance Company jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the application up to December, 2000 and thereafter at the rate of 7% till realization. It is reported that a sum of Rs.12,45,000/- awarded by the learned tribunal is already paid to the original claimants and, therefore, now the respondent-Insurance Company is required to pay the balance amount of Rs.58,488/- with proportionate interest, which shall be paid to the original claimants within a period of six weeks from today. The 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. Appeal partly allowed.