JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 765 of 2001 dated 27/11/2007, by which the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Jitendrabhai, original opponent No. 2 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the present First Appeal. : Submissions of the Appellant : 2. Ms. Pandey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the - appellant - original opponent No. 2 - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has committed a grave error in awarding Rs. 4,50,000/- towards future loss/loss of dependency by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is vehemently submitted that as the deceased was bachelor and the original claimant was mother of the deceased, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 1/2 was required to be deducted while awarding future loss of income towards personal expenses of the deceased. 2.1 Ms. Pandey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Corporation has further submitted that therefore, the learned tribunal ought to have awarded loss of dependency at Rs. 1875 per month and future loss accordingly. Submissions on behalf of the original claimant : 3. On the other hand, Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has submitted that it is true that as per the decision of Sarla Verma (supra), as the deceased was bachelor, only 1/2 was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. However, he has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 15 instead of 17. He has further submitted that even the original claimant shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under conventional heads instead of Rs. 25,000 warded by the learned tribunal. Therefore, it is requested to pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Conclusion : 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 50,000/- under conventional heads instead of Rs. 25,000 warded by the learned tribunal. Therefore, it is requested to pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Conclusion : 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 4.1 It is required to be noted that while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has assessed income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 2500/- per month and thereafter added 50% towards future rise in income and thereafter deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the learned tribunal has considered/assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 2500/- per month and after applying multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000/- under the head of future loss of income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal has considered/assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 2500/- per month and after applying multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000 under the head of future loss of income. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in assessing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 2500/- per month. However, as the deceased was bachelor, 1/2 was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, instead the learned tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and has considered loss of dependency at Rs. 2500 per month. Under the circumstances, the loss of dependency after deducting 1/2 towards personal expenses of the deceased would come to Rs. 1875/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17 is required to be applied. Consequently and accordingly, the original claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,82,500/- under the head of future loss of income/loss of dependency, instead of Rs. 4,80,000 awarded by the learned tribunal. The original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- under the head of conventional heads, such as, loss to estate, loss of love and affection etc. The original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- with interest, as awarded by the learned tribunal. Present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 5. The original claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- with interest, as awarded by the learned tribunal. Present appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 5. 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), Fast Track Court No. 2, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 765 of 2001 dated 27/11/2007, is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. It is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation as awarded by the learned tribunal. It goes without saying that on modifying the impugned judgment and award, whatever amount the appellant herein - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has deposited in excess of the aforesaid amount determined by the present judgment and order, shall be returned to the appellant herein either from the Fixed Deposit lying with the learned tribunal with proportionate interest accrued thereon, if any and/or from the original claimant. 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. Appeal partly allowed.