JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Mehsana passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 782 of 2009, by which, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded total Rs. 36,36,310/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of claim petition till its realization towards compensation for the death of deceased Babulal Ratanbhai Makwana, the original opponent No. 3 Insurance Company- The United India Insurance Company has preferred present First Appeal No. 1379 of 2014. 1.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the original claimants have also preferred Cross Objection. 2. That in a vehicular accident which occurred on 11.07.2009 deceased Babulal who at the time of accident was aged 55 years died. That the deceased was serving as a Senior Assistant Executive (Finance) in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited. Therefore, the original claimants- heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs. 50 lakhs towards the compensation under the different heads. That by impugned judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 36,36,310/- with 12% interest thereon towards compensation under the different heads, as under:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) For dependency benefit 34,02,630/- For treatment and medicines charges 2,11,180/- For loss of estate 10,000/- For love and affection and consortium 10,000/- For funeral expenses and transportation charges 2,500/- Total Rs. 36,36,310/- 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, both the original opponent No. 3 Insurance Company as well as original claimants have preferred present First Appeal and Cross Objection. 3. Shri Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 34,02,630/- towards future loss of income. 3.1. It is vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss assessing/considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,05,000/- pa. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned advocate for the Insurance Company that as per the salary certificate produced at Exh.27 the gross salary of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 35,122/- per month. It is submitted that the same was including Rs. 5,05,000/- pa. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned advocate for the Insurance Company that as per the salary certificate produced at Exh.27 the gross salary of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 35,122/- per month. It is submitted that the same was including Rs. 318/- towards fuel and maintenance charges and Rs. 1500/- towards uniform allowance. It is submitted that after the death and when the deceased could not be in employment, the claimants shall not be entitled to any amount towards fuel and maintenance and/or towards uniform allowance, which the deceased was being paid while he was in service. 3.2. It is submitted that therefore, deducting Rs. 318/- towards fuel and maintenance, Rs. 1500/- towards Uniform allowance per month, the net salary would come to Rs. 30,604/- per month and after deducting Rs. 19,586/- towards income tax, the income of the deceased would come to Rs. 3,47,662/- and after rounding off, it would be come to Rs. 3,48,000/-. It is submitted that therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future loss of income considering/assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,48,000/- p.a. 3.3. It is further submitted by Shri Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It is submitted that as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and as the accident occurred in the year 2009, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal to the aforesaid extent. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the original claimants. While opposing the present appeal and in support of the Cross Objection, Shri Gadhvi, learned advocate for the original claimants has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing/considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. While opposing the present appeal and in support of the Cross Objection, Shri Gadhvi, learned advocate for the original claimants has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing/considering the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 5,05,000/- p.a. It is submitted that looking to the status of the deceased and as he was serving as Senior Assistant Executive (Finance) in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited after his death his prospects were bright, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 5,05,000/- p.a. and has rightly awarded future loss of income at the rate of Rs. 4,64,000/- (after deducting income tax). 4.1. It is further submitted by Shri Gadhvi, learned advocate for the original claimants that even otherwise learned Tribunal has materially erred in not awarding any amount towards pain, shock and suffering. It is submitted that the deceased surviving for 7 days and as such after accident, he was hospitalized for 7 days and while taking treatment, he died. It is submitted that therefore, the claimants shall be entitled atleast Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Gadhvi, learned advocate for the original claimants that as the deceased was hospitalized for 7 days, after accident the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet and attendants charges etc. 4.3. It is further submitted by Shri Gadhvi, learned advocate for the original claimants that learned Tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 22,500/- only under the conventional head i.e. loss of estate and loss of consortium. It is submitted that as per the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,10,000/- under the conventional head and funeral expenses. 4.4. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is not required to be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the First Appeal and to allow the present Cross Objection. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the First Appeal and to allow the present Cross Objection. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the deceased at the time of accident was aged 55 years of age. He was serving as Senior Assistant Executive (Finance) in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited. As per the salary certificate produced at Exh.27, his gross salary was Rs. 35,122/- which was including Rs. 318/- towards fuel and maintenance charges and Rs. 1500/- towards uniform allowance. That sum of Rs. 19586/- was also deducted towards income tax. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 318/- towards fuel and maintenance charges and Rs. 1500/- towards uniform allowance, the deceased was entitled to while he was in service. Therefore, after the death of the deceased, the original claimants shall not be entitled for the aforesaid amount and therefore, the same cannot be included in the income of the deceased while awarding future loss of income. Therefore, after deducting Rs. 318/- towards fuel and maintenance charges and Rs. 1500/- towards uniform allowance, the net salary of the deceased would come to Rs. 30,604/-. That after deducting Rs. 19,586/- towards income tax, it would come to Rs. 3,47,662/- i.e. Rs. 3,48,000/- p.a. As the deceased was aged 55 years of age, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 nothing is required to be added towards future rise in income. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future loss of income considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,48,000/- p.a. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 11 as the deceased was aged 55 years of age, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 25,552/- towards future loss of income. 5.1. As the deceased survived for 7 days and was hospitalized and thereafter died while taking treatment, the original claimants shall be entitled to atleast Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 5.2. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, attendants charges etc. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 5.1. As the deceased survived for 7 days and was hospitalized and thereafter died while taking treatment, the original claimants shall be entitled to atleast Rs. 50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. 5.2. The claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, attendants charges etc. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 2,11,280/- for medical treatment and medicine charges as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5.3. As the accident occurred in the year 2009, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,10,000/- under the conventional head and towards funeral expenses. 5.4. The learned Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a.. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the original claimants shall be entitled to total Rs. 29,33,180/- towards different heads as above with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Mehsana passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 782 of 2009 is hereby modified and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to total sum of Rs. 29,33,180/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. thereon from the date of claim petition till its realization. On partly allowing the appeal and modifying the impugned judgment and award, any amount deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company in excess of the amount awarded by the present judgment and order, the appellant - Insurance Company shall be entitled to get back to the same and same be returned to the appellant Insurance company by account payee cheque from the amount already lying with the learned Tribunal. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Consequently, Cross Objection stands disposed of.