JUDGMENT : M.R SHAH, J. ADMIT. Mr. Arvind Thakore, learned advocate waives the service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents-original claimants 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned tribunal” for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 82 of 2012 by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs.35,30,000/- towards compensation under different heads for the death of deceased-Mauliksinh Zala, original opponent No.3-New India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present First Appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that in a vehicular accident which occurred on 2/1/2012, deceased Mauliksinh Zala died. That the original claimants-widow and two minors and parents of the deceased filed claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs.50 Lacs towards compensation under different heads. 4. To prove the income, the original claimants relied upon Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 produced at Ex. Nos. 24 to 26. 5. Taking the mean of the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns for the aforesaid Assessment Years, the learned tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at the time of death of the deceased at Rs.1,84,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and thereafter adding 50% towards future rise in income, the learned tribunal considered the loss of dependency at Rs.2,07,000/- per annum and after applying multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal awarded Rs.31,05,000/- towards future loss in income. That thereafter, the learned tribunal has awarded a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the children and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the parents and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, by the impugned judgment and award, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.35,30,000/- under different heads with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, original opponent No.3-Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal. 7. Mr. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal, original opponent No.3-Insurance Company has preferred the present First Appeal. 7. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,84,000/- per annum. 8. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that while assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,84,000/- per annum, the learned tribunal has considered the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. It is submitted that the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 has been filed subsequently after the death of the deceased and therefore, the same was not required to be considered by the learned tribunal. It is submitted that therefore, if the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 are considered, in that case, even considering the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2010-2012, the income of the deceased at the time of accident at the best can be considered at Rs.1,68,000/- per annum. 9. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income while considering the prospective income. 10. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that considering the rise in income which is evident from the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 at the best the learned tribunal ought to have added 15% to 20% towards future rise in income while awarding future rise in income. 11. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- under the conventional heads. It is submitted that considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 3894 of 2006 and 491 of 2001 when the Division Bench has observed and held that for the accident occurred in the year 2007/2008 Rs.1,00,000/- would be appropriate amount towards conventional heads and even considering the subsequent price rise, decrease of value of rupee, etc. 3894 of 2006 and 491 of 2001 when the Division Bench has observed and held that for the accident occurred in the year 2007/2008 Rs.1,00,000/- would be appropriate amount towards conventional heads and even considering the subsequent price rise, decrease of value of rupee, etc. and in the facts and circumstances of the case when the accident occurred in the year 2012, original claimants may be awarded the amount between Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- under conventional heads. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal accordingly. 12. Mr. Arvind Thakore, learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the original claimants. He has submitted that as such Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 was filed subsequent to the death of the deceased and therefore, the same may not be considered while assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Therefore, he has vehemently submitted that for the purpose of awarding future loss of income can be assessed at Rs.1,68,000/- per annum. However, he has submitted that there was an increase in the income which is evident from the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and therefore, future rise can be given at 20%. It is submitted that therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the rise in the income the original claimants shall be entitled to at least 20% towards future rise in income while considering prospective income. Therefore, he has requested to pass appropriate order so far as the future loss of income is concerned. Now, so far as the amount awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, it is submitted that the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. It is submitted that the amount awarded by the learned tribunal under the conventional heads can be said to be just conventional and same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. 13. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the factum of death of deceased Mauliksinh in the vehicular accident is not in dispute. Therefore, the present appeal is required to be considered qua the amount of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. 15. 14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the factum of death of deceased Mauliksinh in the vehicular accident is not in dispute. Therefore, the present appeal is required to be considered qua the amount of quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal. 15. That by the impugned judgment and award the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.35,30,000/- to the original claimants under different heads as under:- Rs. 31,05,5000/- Towards future loss of income. Rs. 01,00,000/- Towards loss of consortium. Rs. 01,00,000/- Towards loss of love and affection to the children. Rs. 01,00,000/- Towards loss of love and affection to the parents. Rs. 00,25,000/- Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 35,30,000/- Total 16. That while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. That while assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,84,000/- per annum, the learned tribunal has considered the Income Tax Returns produced at Ex. Nos. 24 to 26 for the Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 was filed after the death of the deceased. Under the circumstances, the same ought not to have been considered by the learned tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Considering the income mentioned in the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and more particularly income mentioned in the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2010-2011 which can be said to be the income at the time of accident/death of the deceased at the time of accident, the income of the deceased at the time of accident can safely be assessed at Rs.1,68,000/- per annum. Looking to the rise in income which is evident from the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the original claimants shall be entitled to 20% future rise in income. Under the circumstances, the prospective income would come to Rs.2,01,600/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, net dependency would come to Rs.1,51,200/- per annum and applying multiplier of 15, the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.22,68,000/- towards future loss of income. 17. Under the circumstances, the prospective income would come to Rs.2,01,600/- per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, net dependency would come to Rs.1,51,200/- per annum and applying multiplier of 15, the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.22,68,000/- towards future loss of income. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and when for the accident occurred in the year 2007, the Division Bench of this Court in various decisions awarded Rs.1,10,000/- under the conventional heads and subsequent accident in the year 2010 which was enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-, if for the accident which has occurred in the year 2012, Rs.2,00,000 is awarded to the original claimants under the conventional heads, the same can be said to be just compensation. The original claimants shall also be entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Thus, the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.24,93,000/- towards compensation under the different heads with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified and present appeal is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 18. 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 (Auxiliary), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 82 of 2012 to the above extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.24,93,000/- towards compensation under the different heads with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 19. As it is reported that the appellant Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount as awarded by the learned tribunal, on present appeal being partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent, the appellant Insurance company shall be entitled to get back the amount in excess to Rs.24,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, from the amount lying with the learned tribunal in Fixed Deposit, if any and the same shall be paid to the appellant Insurance Company by account Payee Cheque. 20. 20. Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. In view of disposal of the main First Appeal, Civil Application No. 8160 of 2016 stands disposed of.