JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals and as such they are cross-appeals arising out of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, both these appeals are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No. 1) at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 31.1.2007 in M.A.C.P. No. 419 of 2000 by which the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said appeal and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,93,000/- to the original claimants with running interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the application till the actual realization, the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred First Appeal No. 4485 of 2007. 1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as awarding a total sum of Rs. 6,93,000/- with running interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realization, the original claimants have preferred First Appeal No. 5347 of 2007. 2. In a vehicular accident, which took place on 11.3.2000, the deceased Bhupendra Kanaiyalal Shah, who was travelling in a luxury bus, which dashed against a tree on the road resulting in the accident, died on the spot and, therefore, the original claimants of First Appeal No. 5347 of 2007 preferred claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs. 40,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased died in a road accident because of rash and negligent driving on the part of original opponent No. 1. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that at the time of the accident/death the deceased was aged about 58/59 years and was serving in Bank of India as senior auditor and his salary was Rs. 22,201/- per month. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that during his lifetime the deceased had established two firms, namely, S.M. Dyechem Industries and Soft Infosis, which were partnership firms, in which the claimants were also the partners. 22,201/- per month. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that during his lifetime the deceased had established two firms, namely, S.M. Dyechem Industries and Soft Infosis, which were partnership firms, in which the claimants were also the partners. According to the original claimants, the deceased used to actively participate in the said firms and due to his efforts huge amount of profit had been earned by the firms and the deceased used to additionally receive Rs. 30,000/- per month towards the service from his two firms. Thus, at the relevant time, deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and, therefore, the original claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- towards the compensation for the death of the deceased. 2.1 The claim petition was opposed by the insurance company-original opponent No. 2 by filing written statement at Exh. 13. It denied the income/business of the two firms. Learned trial court framed the issue at Exh. 19. On appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal has held the driver of the luxury bus solely responsible for the accident. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the future loss of income/dependency at Rs. 1,34,000/- per annum considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum and, thereafter, applying the multiplier of 5 has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,70,000/- under the head of future economic loss and has awarded a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and by the impugned judgment and award has awarded Rs. 6,93,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased with 7.5 per cent interest thereon from the date of application till realization. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal both the original claimants as well as the insurance company-original opponent No. 2 have preferred the present first appeals. 2.3 Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant insurance company, has vehemently submitted that while awarding the future economic loss the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not deducting any amount for the family pension received by the family. It is submitted, therefore, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum and has materially erred in considering the dependency at Rs. 1,34,000/- per annum. It is submitted, therefore, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum and has materially erred in considering the dependency at Rs. 1,34,000/- per annum. No other submissions have been made. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present first appeal preferred by the insurance company and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, has vehemently submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Dei v. Himachal Road Trans. Corpn., 2008 ACJ 1107 (SC), the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in not deducting the amount of family pension received by the original claimants and, therefore, it is requested to dismiss the first appeal preferred by the insurance company. 4. Now so far as the first appeal preferred by the original claimants, being First Appeal No. 5347 of 2007 to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum, i.e., Rs. 16,666/- per month. It is further submitted that while awarding the future economic loss the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased considering the basic pay plus the dearness allowance alone. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered other benefits/allowances which were being paid to the deceased. It is submitted, therefore, that considering the salary certificate issued by the bank and deducting 10 per cent towards income tax and further deducting the amount towards the professional tax, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 21,000 per month. It is submitted that deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of dependency at Rs. 14,000/- per month. It is submitted that considering the age of the deceased, i.e., 58/59 years as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), multiplier of 9 was required to be applied. 14,000/- per month. It is submitted that considering the age of the deceased, i.e., 58/59 years as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), multiplier of 9 was required to be applied. It is submitted that while awarding future economic loss, the learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 5 only. It is submitted by Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. It is submitted that considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 2000 and considering the rate of interest prevailing at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the application till realization. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the first appeal preferred by the original claimants. 5. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, while opposing the first appeal preferred by the original claimants has vehemently submitted that as such no error has been committed by learned Claims Tribunal in considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 16,666 per month and at Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. However, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, has fairly conceded that looking to the age of the deceased, i.e., 58/59 years as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), multiplier of 9 was required to be applied. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Perused and considered the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and we have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 58/59 years and was serving as senior auditor in the Bank of India and as per the salary certificate produced on record at Exh. 26 the gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 22,201/-. 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that at the time of accident the deceased was aged 58/59 years and was serving as senior auditor in the Bank of India and as per the salary certificate produced on record at Exh. 26 the gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 22,201/-. The same includes other allowances which were being paid to the deceased. Considering the income tax slab/rate of income tax prevailing at the relevant time minimum 10 per cent was required to be deducted towards income tax and even the professional tax was also required to be deducted and, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documentary evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased was required to be considered at Rs. 21,000/- per month for the purpose of considering the dependency/future economic loss and thereafter, deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased, the actual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 14,000/- per month as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma, , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). As the deceased was aged 58/59 years multiplier of 9 is required to be applied. Under the circumstances, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 15,12,000/- under the head of future economic loss and adding a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 15,35,000/-. 6.2 Now so far as the contention on behalf of the appellant insurance company in First Appeal No. 4485 of 2007 that the family pension, which was being paid to the family members-original claimants, more particularly widow, is required to be deducted is concerned, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Dei, 2008 ACJ 1107 (SC), the same cannot be accepted. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed and held that while computing the dependency of the original claimants, the family pension amount is not deductible. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed and held that while computing the dependency of the original claimants, the family pension amount is not deductible. 6.3 Now so far as the contention on behalf of the original claimants that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum is concerned, it is required to be noted that the accident took place in the year 2000 and, therefore, considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court and the rate of interest prevailing at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the application till realization. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, First Appeal No. 4485 of 2007 preferred by the appellant-original opponent No. 2, insurance company, is hereby dismissed and so far as First Appeal No. 5347 of 2007 preferred by the original claimants is concerned, the same is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31.1.2007 in M.A.C.P. No. 419 of 2000 is hereby modified to the extent that the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 15,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realization. The enhanced amount to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of eight weeks from today. First Appeal No. 5347 of 2007 is accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.