JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company, whereby, it has challenged the judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 25.07.2005 rendered in MACP No.1195 of 1995, whereby, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 3,73,500/- for the death of deceased Rukhiben Kanchanbhai Vasava. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. on 22.06.1995 deceased Rukhiben while returning from the field towards her house after completing her labour work, at that time one tempo No. GJ-6-U-7817 came from behind with excessive speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed with deceased Rukhiben nearby village Ghavat. In the result of the said accident, deceased Rukhiben sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the original claimants being the heirs of the deceased Rukhiben filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 4. Learned Advocate Shri K.K. Nair for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in fixing the notional income as well as while adopting appropriate multiplicand. He has further contended that even the equal amount of prospective rise has considered by the Tribunal and has erred in awarding compensation. He has further contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the amount awarded under this head is not in accordance with law. He has further contended that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and higher Courts while dealing with such cases are not followed by the Tribunal. Therefore, he has prayed to correct the award passed by the Tribunal as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate Shri Hiren Modi for the respondents- original claimants supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal be dismissed. 6. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate Shri Hiren Modi for the respondents- original claimants supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeal be dismissed. 6. So far as the point of negligence is concerned, after verifying the materials and award on the record, it appears that at the time of returning from the field the deceased Rukhiben dashed with Tempo No. GJ-6-U-7817 which came from her backside. It clearly indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the said tempo in rash and negligent manner. Even otherwise also learned Advocate Shri Nair for the appellant did not raise any grievance or contention regarding finding of negligence as recorded by the Tribunal. 7. On the point of quantum, the evidence on the record clearly indicates that at the time of incident deceased Rukhiben was aged about 30 years as averred in the petition, but the appellant failed to adduce any documentary evidence including birth certificate or any other evidence to prove the age of the deceased. Learned Advocate Shri Nair for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the autopsy report produced on the record, which clearly indicates her age about 42 years. Therefore, in absence of any better documentary evidence, the age of the deceased is required to be counted as per decisive evidence available on the record and therefore her age is required to be believed as 42 years at the time of accident. In that view of the matter, the deceased has fallen in the age group between 41 to 45 years. 8. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that deceased Rukhiben used to earn Rs. 2,500/- by engaging herself as labourer in agriculture operations, animal husbandry and household work. In the cross-examination of the claimants, it is admitted that she used to earn daily Rs. 25/- and she was getting labour work for 15 to 20 days in a month. Therefore, her income from labour work may be counted to be Rs. 500/-. Over and above her labour work she was also engaged in the animal husbandry and was earning Rs. 500/- and Rs. 500/- from her household work. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has counted her income to be Rs. Therefore, her income from labour work may be counted to be Rs. 500/-. Over and above her labour work she was also engaged in the animal husbandry and was earning Rs. 500/- and Rs. 500/- from her household work. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has counted her income to be Rs. 1,500/- per month. It appears that while considering the prospective rise in the income, her income was assessed at Rs.3000/- per month by the Tribunal considering 100% rise in the prospective income. In above view of the matter here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in "SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR." reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , wherein, the Apex Court has laid down the principles of just and proper compensation and has clearly laid down the general guidelines for considering the prospective income of the deceased while adopting addition of 30% of his actual income at the time of accident as the deceased was between the age group of 41 to 45 years. In that view of the matter, while adding 30% addition in the income of the deceased that would come to Rs. 450/- and it rounded of at Rs. 500/-. Thus, the actual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 2,000/- per month. 9. Now, from the aforesaid amount of monthly income, the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in "SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS" (Supra) and taking into consideration that there are four claimants, 1/4 amount is required to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. Thus, on deducting the 1/4 amount from the amount of loss of dependency, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1500 [Rs. 2000-Rs. 500 (i.e. 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses)]. Therefore, the annual or yearly loss of income or dependency would come to (Rs. 1,500 X 12=) 18,000/-. In that view of the matter, in absence of any documentary evidence the age of the deceased may be considered in the age group between 41 and 45 years. Meaning thereby, on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years. 1,500 X 12=) 18,000/-. In that view of the matter, in absence of any documentary evidence the age of the deceased may be considered in the age group between 41 and 45 years. Meaning thereby, on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years. In view of decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS (Supra), the Apex Court has provided a table laying down as to what shall be the just and proper multiplier. Applying the same to the facts of this case, since the deceased was aged about 42 years, the proper multiplier would be 15. Thus, on applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency or future income to the claimants would come to Rs. (18,000 X 15)= 2,70,000/-. 10. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards expectation of life whereas, it has awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,500/- for consortium. However, in view of the facts and circumstances and looking to the age of the deceased and in view of the catena of decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, the original claimants are entitled to amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards the loss to estate and love and affection. Further, they are entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. 11. So far as the interest award by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has allowed the compensation at rate of 7.5% jointly but, it would be appropriate to grant 9% interest to the claimants considering the facts of this case. 12. In view of the above, in short, the respondents-original claimants shall be entitled to the following amounts towards compensation; Loss of dependency or future income Rs. 2,70,000 Towards loss to estate, consortium etc. Rs. 50,000 Towards funeral expenses. Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 3,25,000 In view of the above, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 3,25,000. 13. In the result, this first appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellant-insurance company shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the original claimants along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, till its realization. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2005 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 14. 13. In the result, this first appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED. The appellant-insurance company shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the original claimants along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition, till its realization. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 25.07.2005 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 14. On deposit of the entire amount of compensation as above, the Tribunal shall disburse 40% amount of compensation to Respondent No. 1 and remaining 60% amount of compensation amongst Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, i.e. 20% to each of them, after making proper verification by way of account payee cheques in the name of each respondent. The additional amount, if any, lying with the Tribunal shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. No order as to costs. R&P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.