JUDGMENT : JAYANT M. PATEL, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 475 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 16,88,560 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 30.12.1997 at about 10.45 p.m., near Saiyadpar at Bhuj-Anjar Highway-Road when the deceased Navinbhai, while driving the jeep bearing registration No. GUX 8547, was going towards Gandhidham, one luxury bus bearing registration No. GJ 12-T 4178 came from the opposite direction with excessive speed and dashed against the jeep. Resultantly, the accident occurred and the deceased Navinbhai sustained injuries with the other persons, who were also injured in the accident. The claim petition was filed by the dependent members of the family of deceased Navinbhai for the compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- being M.A.C.P. No. 475 of 1998. It may be recorded that the other claim petitions were also filed by the other injured persons, to which we are not concerned in the present appeal and, therefore, it may not be necessary to record the facts of the said cases. However, in M.A.C.P. No. 475 of 1998, which was preferred by the appellants herein-original claimants, the Tribunal passed the above referred judgment and award. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this court by the original claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. We have heard Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Vasant Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurance company, main contesting party. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants was that the Tribunal has committed error in ignoring the other income tax returns for the subsequent year than 1995-96. It was submitted that the Tribunal has also committed error in awarding compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium and expectation of life, but it should have been higher. Therefore, this court may consider in the present appeal. 4. Whereas, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurance company, while supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, submitted that the Tribunal has properly assessed the income and has also considered the compensation under the other heads of loss of expectation of life and loss of consortium and, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. 5. 4. Whereas, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurance company, while supporting the award passed by the Tribunal, submitted that the Tribunal has properly assessed the income and has also considered the compensation under the other heads of loss of expectation of life and loss of consortium and, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. 5. We have considered the judgment and award and the contents of reasons recorded by the Tribunal and we have also considered the original record of the case. 6. It appears that there were three income tax returns for the respective three years produced. One was of Rs. 1,03,650 for the accounting year 1995-96 (Assessment Year 1996-97) (Exh. 44). Another was for the accounting year 1996-97 (Assessment Year 1997-98) (Exh. 48), wherein income was shown as Rs. 1,35,850/-. The third return at Exh. 52 was for the income of Rs. 1,65,640/-. So far as income tax return at Exh. 44 is concerned, the same was filed on 31.8.1996, the other return at Exh. 48 was filed on 30.8.1997 and, therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to doubt the genuineness of the income tax return. So far as the third income tax return at Exh. 52 is concerned, it is true that it has been filed on 21.5.1998 after the date of the accident, but the relevant aspect is that the income tax of Rs. 25,000/- in the respective year was already paid being advance tax earlier to 15.12.1997, whereas the date of accident is 30.12.1997. When the advance tax was already paid and the tax payable was also Rs. 25,388/- as per the income tax return, it was required of the Tribunal to consider the said return, since prior to the accident, advance income tax was already paid by the deceased. Hence, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the income tax return and the statement of income for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. If the above said incomes are considered and averaged out, it would come to Rs. 1,34,000/- per year. 7. The deceased was aged 32 years and, therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), 50 per cent amount could be considered for prospective income. If 50 per cent is added for assessing prospective income, Rs. 1,34,000/- per year. 7. The deceased was aged 32 years and, therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), 50 per cent amount could be considered for prospective income. If 50 per cent is added for assessing prospective income, Rs. 67,000/- being 50 per cent of Rs. 1,34,000/- can be added and such amount would come to Rs. 2,01,000/- as prospective yearly income of the deceased. The exemption limit as per the Income Tax Act in the year 1997-98 was Rs. 40,000/-. Therefore, out of the amount of Rs. 2,01,000/-, if Rs. 40,000/- is deducted being exemption limit, such net amount would be Rs. 1,61,000/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the tax deduction would be required to be made. It is true that in the year 1997-98, the exemption limit was Rs. 40,000/- only, but in the subsequent year, the exemption limit is substantially increased and the income tax slabs have also substantially gone down. Therefore, considering the said aspect, it would be appropriate to consider 10 per cent deduction towards income tax on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,01,000/- which would come to Rs. 16,000/-. Hence, the net amount would come to Rs. 1,85,000/- per year. Out of the said amount 1/4th amount would be required to be deducted towards personal expenses, since the number of claimants were exceeding three (total five claimants) and such 1/4th amount would come to Rs. 46,250/- and accordingly 3/4th amount would come to Rs. 1,38,750/- per year for dependency benefits and economic loss. Such can be considered for the purpose of applying multiplier while awarding compensation. 8. The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 16, which is in accordance with the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), since the deceased was aged 32 years and if the multiplier of 16 is considered, the total amount would come to Rs. 22,20,000/- (Rs. 1,38,750 x 16) towards economic loss for the claimants. 9. Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 22,20,000/- (Rs. 1,38,750 x 16) towards economic loss for the claimants. 9. Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of expectation of life, which we find is on a lower side, but at the same time, since the date of accident was of December 1997 and considering the cost structure prevailing at the relevant point of time, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 50,000/- under joint heads of loss of consortium, loss of expectation of life and funeral expenses. Hence, Rs. 50,000/- can be awarded as compensation. 10. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 22,70,000/- (Rs. 22,20,000/- + Rs. 50,000/-), as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs. 16,88,560/-. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 22,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum as already awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application until the amount is paid or deposited with the Tribunal and if deposited with the Tribunal with the accrued interest thereon. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.