JUDGMENT : M. R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal-learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.1065/2001 by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,49,767/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased-Krishnaben Barot, both the Insurance Company as well as the original claimants have preferred the First Appeal as well as the Cross Objection. 2. In a vehicular accident, which took place on 20/06/2001, deceased Krishnaben Barot died. At the relevant time, the deceased was aged 43 years and was a bachelor. Her parents as well as sisters filed the Claim Petition before the learned tribunal, being M.A.C.P. No.1065/2001, claiming a total sum of Rs.21,51,560/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased-Krishnaben. At the relevant time and as per the salary slip the income of the deceased was Rs.9771/- per month and adding 30% towards the prospective income, the learned tribunal considered the dependency at Rs.11,000/- per month and after deducting ?rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned tribunal has awarded future economic loss at Rs.7334/- per month and thereafter applying the multiplier of 12 the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.10,56,096/- under the head of future economic loss and has awarded a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expectation of life and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation and thereafter deducting 30% towards the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, by the impugned judgment and award the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,49,767/- to the original claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% thereon from the date of the application till realization. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred First Appeal No.3872/2007 and the original claimants have preferred the Cross Objection to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. 3. Shri Palak Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original opponent no.3-Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in considering the dependency income of the deceased at Rs.7334/- per month for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. 3. Shri Palak Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original opponent no.3-Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in considering the dependency income of the deceased at Rs.7334/- per month for the purpose of awarding future economic loss. It is submitted that the learned tribunal has not deducted any amount towards professional tax as well as Income tax to be paid by the deceased. It is submitted that therefore even deducting 10% towards the Income tax, the learned tribunal ought to have considered the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that adding 30% towards future rise in income the learned tribunal ought to have considered the prospective income at Rs.13,000/- per month. It is submitted that as the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants other than parents were the sisters, out of which one was married at that time and another sister was unmarried and considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor considering 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 , the learned tribunal ought to have deducted ½ towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of ? as deducted by the learned tribunal and, therefore, it is submitted that therefore the learned tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.8,42,400/- under the head of future economic loss. It is submitted that therefore to the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified. 4. On the other hand, Shri Paresh Darji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that even the amount of Income tax as well as professional tax, as contended on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, is deducted. In that case also the learned tribunal has materially erred in applying the multiplier of 12. It is submitted that as the deceased was aged 43 years considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. (Supra) multiplier of 14 is required to be applied. It is submitted that therefore to the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal applying the multiplier of 12 instead of 14 is required to be modified. 4.1. (Supra) multiplier of 14 is required to be applied. It is submitted that therefore to the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal applying the multiplier of 12 instead of 14 is required to be modified. 4.1. It is submitted that even the married sister was deserted and was staying with the deceased and, therefore, considering the number of dependents, the learned tribunal has rightly deducted ?rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that at the relevant time the deceased was a bachelor aged 43 years. The original claimants are the parents and two sisters, out of which one was married with children and, therefore, as such considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. (Supra) only ½ was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 5.1. It is required to be noted that while awarding future economic loss, the learned tribunal has considered the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month and thereafter after deducting ?rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the learned tribunal has considered the dependency loss at Rs.7334/- per month and applying the multiplier of 12 has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,56,096/- towards future economic loss. It is required to be noted that while awarding future economic loss and considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month the learned tribunal has not deducted any amount towards the Income tax and professional tax, which was required to be deducted. At the relevant time, the salary / income of the deceased was Rs.9771/- per month and, therefore, after rounding up it would come to Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and deducting 10% towards Income tax, considering the income tax slab prevailing at that time, it will come to Rs.1,08,000/- and adding 30% towards future rise in income the prospective income was required to be considered at Rs.1,40,400/-. As the deceased was a bachelor and the original claimants are the parents (married and unmarried sisters are not required to be included) 50% i.e. ½ of the amount is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and, therefore, the dependency would come to Rs.70,200/-. As the deceased at the relevant time was aged 43 years and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors. (Supra) the learned tribunal was required to apply the multiplier of 14 instead of 12 and, therefore, applying the multiplier of 14 the future economic loss would come to Rs.9,82,800/- and adding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs.9,97,800/- and deducting 30% towards the contributory negligence of the deceased i.e. Rs.2,99,340/- the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.6,98,460/- against which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,49,767/-. However as the learned tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and no amount has been awarded towards loss of love and affection of the deceased, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is not required to be interfered with. Under the circumstances, the amount of Rs.7,49,767/- as awarded by the learned tribunal can be said to be a just compensation. Under the circumstances, both the First Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company as well as the Cross Objection preferred by the original claimants are required to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in M.A.C.P No.1065/2001 is hereby confirmed. Consequently the First Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company as well as the Cross Objection preferred by the original claimants stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.