JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.766 of 1994, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the deceased Darshakbhai Jayantibhai Patel, when was going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-7-B-7130 on 23.2.1994 and when he reached near Balmandir, one truck bearing Registration No. GRQ-6109 dashed with the motorcycle and resultantly, Darshanbhai sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. The aforesaid accident gave rise to MACP No. 766 of 1994 for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the aforesaid claim petition, passed the above referred judgment and award. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Patel, learned Counsel for the respondents - original claimants, the main contesting parties. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in assessment of the amount of compensation at every stage; one for the assessment of the income, another for the provident fund and the third for gratuity and other benefits. It was submitted that the Tribunal has not at all considered the matter in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC, 121. Hence, the Tribunal has committed apparent error, which may be considered in the present appeal. It was submitted that the amount of compensation already awarded is on a much higher side and be reduced appropriately. 5. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the original claimants submitted that the Tribunal has properly assessed the income, because there was evidence available for the last salary had the deceased continued in service. It was submitted that the provident fund and gratuity has already been properly assessed by the Tribunal and no interference be made by this Court. It was submitted that the compensation already awarded is just and proper. 6. We have considered the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. We have also considered the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. 7. It was submitted that the provident fund and gratuity has already been properly assessed by the Tribunal and no interference be made by this Court. It was submitted that the compensation already awarded is just and proper. 6. We have considered the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. We have also considered the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. 7. There is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not properly considered the principles which have been observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) for the purpose of assessment of the income, and consequently calculation of the provident fund and gratuity amount, etc. 8. The examination of the facts of the present case shows that as per the salary certificate produced, the deceased was having income of Rs.4027.65 per month and if rounded off, it would be Rs.4027/- per month at the time of accident. The Tribunal has erroneously considered the salary of the last month, had the deceased continued in service for the purpose of considering the prospective income. In our view, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) and more particularly the observations made at paragraph 24, 50% of the actual salary was required to be added for the purpose of considering prospective income minus the amount of income tax. The year of accident is 1994 and during the accounting year of 1993-94, the exemption limit of taxable income was Rs.30,000/- and for the year 1994-95, the exemption limit was Rs.35,000/-. Considering the said aspect, approximately the deduction would be at the rate of 10% for the income above the exemption limit. Accordingly, income including prospective income would come to Rs.6,040/- per month and per year, it would be Rs.72,486/-. In the aforesaid amount, 10% of the amount towards income tax would be required to be deducted. Such amount would come to Rs.3,748/- being 10% of Rs.37,486/- (Rs.72,486/- minus Rs.35,000/- - exemption limit). Hence, net amount would be Rs.68,738/- per annum towards economic loss. 9. In our view, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the original claimants for maintaining the prospective income assessed by the Tribunal is expressly negatived by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Hence, net amount would be Rs.68,738/- per annum towards economic loss. 9. In our view, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the original claimants for maintaining the prospective income assessed by the Tribunal is expressly negatived by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra), more particularly the observations made at paragraphs 44 and 45, which read as under:- "44. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when actual figures as to what would be the income in future, are available it is not proper to take a nominal hypothetical increase of only 50% for calculating the income. He submitted that though the deceased was receiving Rs.4004/- per month at the time of death, as per the certificates issued by the employer (produced before High Court), on the basis of pay revisions and increases, his salary would have been Rs.32,678/- in the year 2005 and there is no reason why the said amount should not be considered as the income at the time of retirement. It was contended that the income which is to form the basis for calculation should not therefore be the average of Rs.4004/- and Rs.8008/-, but the average of Rs.4004/- and Rs.32,678/-. 45. The assumption of the appellants that the actual future pay revisions should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the income is not sound. As against the contention of the appellants that if the deceased had been alive, he would have earned the benefit of revised pay scales, it is equally possible that if he had not died in the accident, he might have died on account of ill health or other accident, or lost the employment or met some other calamity or disadvantage. The imponderables in life are too many. Another significant aspect is the nonexistence of such evidence at the time of accident." 10. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, we find that the Tribunal has committed error in averaging out the income at the time of the death and at the time of retirement had the deceased continued in service. In our view, as per the observations made by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. In our view, as per the observations made by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) at paragraph 24 read with paragraphs 44 and 45, the appropriate course to the Tribunal was to add 50% after considering the actual income for the purpose of assessment of the prospective income. Hence, we do not find that the contention raised on behalf of the original claimants can be sustained on the face of the above referred decision and the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra). 11. The Tribunal has erroneously considered ?rd of the amount towards personal expenses, whereas as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) when the deceased was unmarried, 1/2 of the amount was required to be considered for the personal expenses and the remaining 1/2 of the amount can be considered for the purpose of dependency benefits. Accordingly, if 1/2 of the aforesaid amount of Rs.48,738/- per annum is considered for the purpose of dependency benefits, such amount would be Rs.34,369/- per year. 12. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra), considering the age of the deceased as that of 24 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 17 and not 15 as observed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, if multiplier of 17 is applied to the aforesaid amount of Rs.34,369/-, the amount would come to Rs.5,84,273/- towards dependency benefits and not the amount of Rs.16,29,900/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Apart from the above aspect, we find that as per the evidence on record, the original claimants may also be entitled for the loss of provident fund and gratuity. However, while calculating the said amount, the Tribunal has considered the average figure of the prospective income of Rs.13,583/-, which as per the reasons recorded by us herein above, is erroneous and the appropriate amount should be Rs.6,040/- per month, which is considered as the prospective income. If the basis is considered as that of Rs.6,040/- per month and the contribution at the rate of 12% is considered as that of the employer, the loss provident fund could be assessed at Rs.2,60,928/-. If the basis is considered as that of Rs.6,040/- per month and the contribution at the rate of 12% is considered as that of the employer, the loss provident fund could be assessed at Rs.2,60,928/-. In the same manner, the Tribunal has committed error in calculating the amount of gratuity, because the prospective income assessed by the Tribunal is erroneous and as per the reasons recorded by us herein above, the basis should have been considered as that of Rs.6,040/- per month, which has been assessed as the prospective income of the deceased. If the amount of gratuity is calculated in the same way, taking the basis of Rs.6,040/- per month as the income of the deceased, including the prospective income, such amount would be Rs.90,600/- towards loss of gratuity and not the amount of Rs.2,03,700/- as assessed by the Tribunal. 14. In our view, the Tribunal has committed error in considering the aspect of bonus as well as loss of pension. There is no certainty for the amount of bonus, because it is dependent upon the profit earning by the company concerned and further there is no evidence produced on record that the service of the deceased was a pensionable service. In our view, the Tribunal has considered the loss of bonus and loss of pension without there being any proper material for such purpose and the finding recorded by the Tribunal to that extent can be considered as perverse to the record of the case. When there is no material for the entitlement of the bonus or pension, the original claimants would not be entitled to any amount under the head of loss of bonus and loss of pension. Further, the Tribunal has awarded the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, which we do not find it proper to interfere with. 15. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs.5,84,273/- under the head of loss of dependency benefits plus Rs.2,60,928/- under the head of loss of provident fund plus Rs.90,600/- under the head of loss of gratuity plus Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, total Rs.9,35,801/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. However, so far as the interest is concerned, the original claimants would be entitled to such amount of interest from the date of the award for the amount of Rs.2,51,208/- under the head of loss of Provident Fund and Rs.87,225/- under the head of loss of Gratuity, total Rs.3,38,433/- from the date of award. The interest on the remaining amount of compensation shall be available to the original claimants from the date of application until the amount is deposited in the Court or paid, whichever is earlier and if deposited in Court then with the accrued interest thereof. 16. The Tribunal shall re-calculate the amount with accrued interest and if the amount is falling short of, the same shall be deposited by the appellant within eight weeks from today and if the amount is surplus, refund shall be made available to the appellant Insurance Company within eight weeks from today. 17. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. R & P be returned to the Tribunal. Appeal allowed.