JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 832 of 2003 whereby, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 13,33,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 29/04/2003, deceased Raghuvirsingh was going from his residence to Bajwa railway station for attending his job on his motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ06R3790 and when he reached near Laxmi Weigh Bridge on Chhani road, one car bearing registration No. GJ-6-K-4842 dashed with the motorcycle and the deceased was thrown off and sustained injuries and then he succumbed to the injuries. 3. The aforesaid accident gave accident gave rise to two claim petitions, one being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 832 of 2003 for compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs and another was Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1301 of 2005 for compensation of Rs. 8,000/-. We may not refer to the facts of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1301 of 2005 since no appeal is preferred. However, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 832 of 2003, the above-referred judgment and the award came to be passed by the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr. Hakim, learned counsel for the appellants - original claimants and Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for insurance company, the main contesting party. The other respondents are served, but none appears on their behalf. 5. Mr. Hakim, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on much lower side and against the well-settled principles of law as declared by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . It was submitted that, hence, this Court may consider the case in appeal. Whereas, Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company contended that the compensation has been properly awarded and no interference may be made by this Court. 6. We have considered the judgment and the award and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal and we have also considered the record and proceedings. It is undisputed that in the salary slip, Basic Pay, D.A. and other allowances are to be considered, which was Rs. 10,904/- roughly, Rs. 6. We have considered the judgment and the award and the reasons recorded by the Tribunal and we have also considered the record and proceedings. It is undisputed that in the salary slip, Basic Pay, D.A. and other allowances are to be considered, which was Rs. 10,904/- roughly, Rs. 11,000/- per month. However, in the salary slip, if the bifurcation of the amounts is considered, the Basic Pay was of Rs. 5,900/-, D.A. was of Rs. 3,068/-, HRA was of Rs. 885/- and CCA was of Rs. 100/- and if the aforesaid amounts are totalled up, it would come to Rs. 9,953/- and it can be rounded at Rs. 10,000/-, whereas, the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income at Rs. 8,000/- per month. So far as consideration of prospective income is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted correct formula, however, as observed by us herein above, if the income is treated as that of Rs. 10,000/- for the prospective income, such amount would be Rs. 15,000/- ( Rs. 10,000/- + 50% future rise in income) and not Rs. 12,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. Hence, yearly, it would be Rs. 1,80,000/- ( Rs. 15,000/- x 12 = Rs. 1,80,000/-). 6.1 It also appears that the Tribunal has lost sight over the deduction to be made towards the income tax. In the year 2003, the exemption limit of income tax was Rs. 50,000/- and if deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-, the amount which is considered as basis, after excluding Rs. 50,000/- , the taxable income would be Rs. 1,30,000/-. We may record that after 2003-2004, the exemption limit has substantially gone up and the tax slabs have substantially gone down. Therefore, taking into consideration both the aspects, we find that appropriate deduction towards income tax on the taxable income of Rs. 1,30,000/- should be considered at the rate of 10% of taxable income and if the same is considered, the income tax would be Rs. 13,000/-( Rs. 1,30,000/- x 10%). Accordingly, Rs. 1,67,000/-( Rs. 1,80,000/-( minus) Rs. 13,000/-) can be considered as net income for the purpose of calculating the dependency loss after excluding the personal expenses. 6.2 As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), when the number of claimants are exceeding three but not exceeding six, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th, which would be Rs. 13,000/-) can be considered as net income for the purpose of calculating the dependency loss after excluding the personal expenses. 6.2 As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), when the number of claimants are exceeding three but not exceeding six, the deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th, which would be Rs. 41,750/- and 3/4th of the amount would be Rs. 1,25,250/- which can be considered for the economic loss to the original claimants per annum. 6.3 As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) the appropriate multiplier would be of 16 keeping in view the age of the decease as that of 34 years and hence, if the multiplier of 16 is applied to the aforesaid yearly economic loss of Rs. 1,25,250/-, such amount would be Rs. 20,04,000/- as against the amount assessed by the Tribunal of Rs. 12,48,000/-. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal would be required to be modified to that extent. 6.4 There is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has awarded lessor amount towards heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and affection. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss of estate only. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that under the conjoint heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and loss of love and affection, the appellants - original claimants would be entitled to amount of Rs. 1 lakh and not Rs. 40,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. If the aforesaid amount is added, the total would be Rs. 21,04,000/- and not Rs. 12,88,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Additionally, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering to which, we are not inclined to interfere. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it held that the appellants original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 21,49,000/- with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of application until the amount is paid or if deposited, with accrued interest thereon. The judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 21,49,000/- with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of application until the amount is paid or if deposited, with accrued interest thereon. The judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Registry to return the R&P to the Tribunal.