JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. [1] As in all these appeals, common question has arisen for consideration and arises from common accident, they are considered simultaneously. [2] The short facts appear to be that on 25.10.2003, deceased Chiragbhai was going from Ahmedabad to Viramgam in Maruti Car which was being driven by him with Nitesh, Heenaben and minor Purvin. When they reached near Khetiya Nagdev Temple Bus Stand at about 3.45 p.m., one Mini Luxury Bus driven by original opponent No.1, respondent No.4 herein came from opposite direction and dashed with the car. Resultantly Chiragbhai, Nitesh, Heenaben and minor Purvin sustained serious injuries and ultimately, they succumbed to the said injuries. Such accident gave rise to four claim petitions being Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1426, 1427, 1428 and 1429 of 2003 for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of proceedings, in all the claim petitions, passed common judgment and award whereby the Tribunal awarded in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1426, 1427, 1428 and 1429 of 2003, the amount of Rs.6,63,000/- Rs.17,23,000/- Rs.7,33,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- respectively with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is under these circumstances, all the appeals before this Court by the Insurance Company. We may record that First Appeal Nos.1743, 1744, 1745 and 1746 of 2006 arise from the award passed in the respective claim petitions being Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1426, 1427, 1428 and 1429 of 2003. [3] We have heard Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A. V. Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondents – original claimants in all the matters. [4] Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel for the appellant raised the common contention that the assessment of the income by the Tribunal in each of the matters is on higher side and in his submission, gross income which includes income derived from business as per the income tax return could not have been considered by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the net income derived from the business of the deceased and, therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal deserves to be substantially reduced. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the net income derived from the business of the deceased and, therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal deserves to be substantially reduced. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side in each case because in three appeals, except in First Appeal No.1744 of 2006, the claimants were only parents or the grandparents of the deceased and their age was 62 and 66 years respectively. So far as the age of 62 years is concerned, the multiplier applied should not have been 08 but it should be 07 even if the age of the mother is considered. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error which may be interfered with by this Court in the present appeals. [5] Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents – original claimants, in all the appeals, contended that the income has been properly assessed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal, in all the appeals, except in First Appeal No.1744 of 2006, is on lower side. He submitted that the age of the deceased is to be considered for applying multiplier and not the age of the dependent claimants. He also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount for the loss of love and affection and consortium and as per the recent trend of the Apex Court, minimum amount should be awarded of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded too meager amount for the funeral expenses. He submitted that the notional income considered by the Tribunal for the minor deceased is also on lower side, since the schedule of Rs.15,000/- is in the year 1989 whereas, the date of the accident in the present case is of the year 2003. He submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the said aspects and, if all the aforesaid circumstances are considered, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be just compensation and no reduction in the amount of compensation already awarded would be called for. [6] We may consider each case in the First Appeals separately for the purpose of determination of the compensation. [6] We may consider each case in the First Appeals separately for the purpose of determination of the compensation. FIRST APPEAL NO.1743 OF 2006 [M.A.C.P. NO.1426 OF 2003]: [7] The perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased Chiragbhai at Rs.80,000/- per annum and, thereafter, 50% is added towards prospective income and has arrived at a figure of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum including prospective income for the purpose of dependency benefits. The examination of the record of the case shows that the Income Tax Returns were produced in support of the claim for the A.Y. 2003-2004. As per the statement of the income, the net income from the business was Rs.74,035/- and other income of Rs.18,350/- towards the interest on the fixed deposit receipt and other investment was required to be excluded. Accordingly, even as per the income tax record, the income can be assessed at Rs.74,035/- for the A.Y. 2003-2004 (Accounting Year 2002-2003). The another Income Tax Return at Exhibit 33 together with statement of income shows that the net income from the business was Rs.45,756/- for the purpose of the income tax otherwise, if the depreciation is added the income would come to Rs.74,995/-. The depreciation is separately deducted from the income for the purpose of the income tax and hence, the income from the business would include the amount of depreciation. Accordingly, the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.74,955/-. If the amount of Rs.74,995/-, which can be rounded off at Rs.75,000/- and in this manner, if the amount of Rs.74,000/- plus amount of Rs.75,000/- is averaged out per year, such amount would come to Rs.74,500/- as the income of the deceased as per the Income Tax Returns being averaged out. Therefore, the yearly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.74,500/- per annum. Thereafter, if the prospective income is considered by adding 50%, the amount would come to Rs.1,11,750/- and it can be rounded off Rs.1,12,000/- per annum. Hence, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income for the purpose of dependency benefits at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Thereafter, if the prospective income is considered by adding 50%, the amount would come to Rs.1,11,750/- and it can be rounded off Rs.1,12,000/- per annum. Hence, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income for the purpose of dependency benefits at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/3rd amount would be required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.37,333/- and 2/3rd of the amount for the purpose of dependency benefits would come to Rs.74,666/- and it can be rounded off at Rs.75,000/- per annum, as against Rs.80,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed an error to that extent. [8] On the aspect of multiplier, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 08 keeping in view the age of one of the claimants. The age of the mother of the deceased is 62 years, whereas the age of father of the deceased is 66 years. If the age of the mother is considered keeping in view the age of the dependent claimants read with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 = (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the appropriate multiplier may be 7. Our attention is drawn to the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 and more particularly the observation made in paragraph No.15 which reads as under : “The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.” [9] If the age of the deceased is considered, as found by the Tribunal, of 39 years, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier may be of 15. But we need to keep in mind that the original claimants have not preferred any appeals for enhancement of the compensation nor have filed any cross-objections in the present appeals preferred by the Insurance Company for reduction of the amount of compensation. [10] If the multiplier of 07 based on the age of the parents is considered and economic loss of Rs.75,000/- per annum is considered, the amount would come to Rs.5,25,000/- and if the multiplier of 15 is considered on the basis of yearly financial loss of Rs.75,000/- such amount would come to Rs.11,25,000/-. Further, there would be aspects of awarding higher compensation for the loss of expectation of life, love and affection of about Rs.1,00,000/- plus funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/-. As against the same, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,63,000/- to the original claimants. Under these circumstances, when the original claimants are satisfied with the compensation and they have not preferred any appeal for enhancement or cross-objection, we find that the award passed by the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 6,63,000/- would not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. FIRST APPEAL NO.1744 OF 2006 [M.A.C.P. NO.1427 OF 2003]: [11] The perusal of the judgment and award of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Nitesh Shantilal Shah at Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and after considering prospective income, it has been assessed to Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal has, thereafter, applied the multiplier of 17 and has awarded Rs.17,00,000/- towards future economic loss to the original claimants. We have considered the record of the Income Tax Returns produced on behalf of the original claimants at Exhibits 44, 45 and 46 for the Accounting Year of 2002-2003, 2001-2002 and 2000-2001. As per the statement of income, the income from business is shown as Rs.69,943/-, Rs.36,213/- and Rs.79,181/- respectively. If the aforesaid income of three years is averaged out, the amount would come to Rs.61,779/- and it could be rounded off at Rs.62,000/- per annum. Thereafter, if the prospective income is considered, the amount would be Rs.93,000/- per annum, out of which, 1/4th of the amount would be required to be deducted, since number of claimants were exceeding three as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thereafter, if the prospective income is considered, the amount would be Rs.93,000/- per annum, out of which, 1/4th of the amount would be required to be deducted, since number of claimants were exceeding three as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Hence, personal expenses would be i.e. Rs.23,250/- per annum and accordingly 2/3rd of the amount of Rs.69,750/- can be considered for dependency benefits, such could be rounded off at Rs.70,000/- per annum, as against the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. [12] The age of the deceased was 29 years and as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be of 17 for the age group of 26-30 years which has already granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, if multiplier of 17 is considered on the amount of Rs.70,000/- per annum, it would be Rs.11,85,750/- towards future economic loss whereas the Tribunal has erroneously assessed at Rs.17,00,000/- under the head of future economic loss. [13] It further appears that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and further Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Considering the recent trend in the decision of the Apex Court, we find it appropriate to award the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under one head of loss of love and affection as well as loss of consortium. [14] It also further appears that the Tribunal has awarded too meager amount of Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. In our view, the appropriate amount could have been Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. In this manner, appropriate compensation deserves to be awarded would be Rs.11,85,750/- plus Rs.1,00,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- total Rs.12,95,750/- and it can be rounded at Rs.13,00,000/- as against the Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,23,000/- and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal would be required to be modified accordingly. FIRST APPEAL NO.1745 OF 2006 [M.A.C.P. NO.1428 OF 2003]: [15] The perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.90,000/- per annum of the deceased and, thereafter, has considered prospective income and has assessed the income at Rs.1,35,000/- per annum. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses and accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the amount of Rs.90,000/- per annum towards future economic loss. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses and accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the amount of Rs.90,000/- per annum towards future economic loss. We have considered the record of the Income Tax Returns and statements of income produced on behalf of the original claimants at Exhibits 53, 54 and 55 for A.Y. 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 respectively. The statements of income appended with the Income Tax Returns show that the net income of the deceased has been shown and was Rs.75,855/-, Rs.59,543/- and Rs.74,660/- respectively. If the aforesaid amount is averaged out for three years per year, it would be Rs.72,095/- and it could be rounded off at Rs.70,000/- per annum as against the assessment made by the Tribunal of Rs.1,00,000/- per year. Thereafter, if the prospective income is considered, such amount comes to Rs.1,05,000/- as against Rs.1,35,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal including the prospective income. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,05,000/- per annum, 1/3rd of the amount would be required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.35,000/- and accordingly, 2/3rd of the amount would be Rs.70,000/- towards dependency benefits under the head of future economic loss per annum. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 37 years, but, for the purpose of application of multiplier, the Tribunal has considered the age of one of the claimants - the mother-in-law of the deceased of 62 years and has applied multiplier of 08. In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, while considering the facts of First Appeal No.1473 of 2006, if the age of the deceased is considered, the appropriate multiplier, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), would be 15 and accordingly, the amount may come to Rs.10,50,000/- plus Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and consortium and Rs.10,000/- under the head of funeral expenses may be required to be considered. But it appears that the original claimants have neither preferred any cross-objection nor any appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the Tribunal of Rs.7,33,000/-. Hence, we find that no interference in the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal would be called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. But it appears that the original claimants have neither preferred any cross-objection nor any appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the Tribunal of Rs.7,33,000/-. Hence, we find that no interference in the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal would be called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. FIRST APPEAL NO.1746 OF 2006 [M.A.C.P. NO.1429 OF 2003]: [16] The perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has considered notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and since the deceased was aged 9 years, the prospective income is not considered and the multiplier of 15 has been applied by the Tribunal. We find that considering the facts and circumstances, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal as well as the notional income assessed by the Tribunal of Rs.15,000/- per annum cannot be said to be unreasonable which may call for interference in the present appeal. The attempt to content that the lower multiplier by considering the age of the claimants who were grandparents, in our view, cannot be countenanced for the reasons stated hereinabove and more particularly in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra). The perusal of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has assessed the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and has applied multiplier of 15 and has arrived at compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. [17] As such no fault can be found with the Tribunal in assessing the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum. However, there is substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents – original claimants that Rs.15,000/- per annum is the notional income prescribed by the parliament in the year 1989. If minimum inflation rate of 5% is considered for about 14 years, it would be Rs.10,500/- and if rounded it off at Rs.10,000/- approximately such figure of Rs.15,000/- may get substituted and would stand par at Rs.25,000/- in view of cost structure and inflation for the purpose of notional income. Out of the aforesaid amount, if 1/3rd of the amount is considered towards personal expenses of Rs.8,333/-, 2/3rd of the amount would be Rs.16,666/- as against the same the Tribunal has considered the amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum which we find it as reasonable. Out of the aforesaid amount, if 1/3rd of the amount is considered towards personal expenses of Rs.8,333/-, 2/3rd of the amount would be Rs.16,666/- as against the same the Tribunal has considered the amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum which we find it as reasonable. Further, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 which in any case cannot be considered on lower side. The Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as lump sump compensation which we find considering the facts and circumstances, no case for interference. [18] Accordingly, it is observed and held that the original claimants would be entitled to the compensation to Rs.13,00,000/- as against Rs.17,23,000/- in First Appeal No.1744 of 2006. [19] In rest of the appeals, the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal would not call for interference. [20] On the aspects of the interest awarded by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum which appears to be on lower side then the normal trend in awarding of interest by the Tribunal ranging from 7.5% to 8% per annum. In view of the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, we find that except in First Appeal No.1744 of 2006, the total amount of compensation including the interest awarded is not reduced and the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Therefore, we find that in view of such peculiar facts and circumstances and more particularly the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, the amount awarded by way of compensation is not being reduced, since the original claimants have not preferred any appeals nor any cross-objections for enhancement of the compensation, hence, no interference may be called for in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. [21] However, in First Appeal No.1744 of 2006, the scope of the appeal can be considered to the extent of the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal would include awarding of the interest. We find that if on account of reduction of the principal amount of compensation, the rate of interest of 6% per annum is allowed to be maintained at par, such may resultant into reduction of the total amount including the interest granted to the original claimants. We find that if on account of reduction of the principal amount of compensation, the rate of interest of 6% per annum is allowed to be maintained at par, such may resultant into reduction of the total amount including the interest granted to the original claimants. Hence, we find that in First Appeal No.1744 of 2006, the appropriate interest should available to the claimants at 7.5% per annum from the date of application until the amount is deposited with the Court. Hence order accordingly. The Tribunal shall recalculate the amount in First Appeal No.1744 of 2006 and if any surplus is to be refunded to the appellant and the same shall be refunded preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. [22] First Appeal Nos.1743, 1745 and 1746 of 2006 shall stand dismissed. The First Appeal No.1744 of 2006 shall stand partly allowed. No order as to cost. Registry to return the Record and Proceedings to the Tribunal.