JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 895 of 1998, by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 47,70,900 (after deducting 5% towards contributory negligence of the deceased), the original opponent No. 3 - Insurer of Truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-TT-6531, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. Facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- "2.01. That in a vehicular accident which occurred on 1/7/1998 between Tata Sumo bearing registration No. GJ-13-CC-0049 and Truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-TT-6531, the driver of the Tata Sumo - deceased Mahendrabhai Pithwa died. Therefore, the original claimants - heirs and legal representatives of deceased driver of Tata Sumo - deceased Mahendrabhai Nagardas Pithwa filed the claim petition before the learned tribunal claiming Rs. 75 Lacs towards compensation. 2.02. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has held the deceased driver of Tata Suymo contributory negligent to the extent of 5%. 2.03. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has considered income of the deceased at Rs. 2,70,000/-. After adding 50% towards future rise in income, the learned tribunal considered the prospective income at Rs. 4,05,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of 16, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 48,60,000/- towards future loss of income. That thereafter the learned tribunal has awarded further sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- under the conventional heads. Therefore, the learned tribunal determined compensation at Rs. 50,22,000/-. After deducting 5% towards contributory negligence of the deceased, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 47,70,900/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon. 2.04. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal in determining total compensation at Rs. 50,22,000/- and awarding Rs. 47,70,900/-, (after deducting 5% towards personal expenses of the deceased), the Insurance Company of the truck involved in the accident has preferred the present appeal." 3. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant - original opponent No. 3 and Mr. Hriday Buch has appeared on behalf of the original claimants and Mr. 47,70,900/-, (after deducting 5% towards personal expenses of the deceased), the Insurance Company of the truck involved in the accident has preferred the present appeal." 3. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant - original opponent No. 3 and Mr. Hriday Buch has appeared on behalf of the original claimants and Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 9. 3.1 Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding future loss of income considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,70,000/-. It is submitted that while awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has not deducted income tax at all. It is submitted that the learned tribunal ought to have deducted at least 10% towards income tax. 3.2 Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in adding 50% towards future rise in income. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the rise in income of the deceased which is established as per the Income Tax Returns of last three years, the learned tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future rise in income. 3.3 Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding Rs. 1,60,000/- under conventional heads. It is submitted that as the accident had occurred in the year 1998, the original claimants shall be entitled to only Rs. 1,10,000 under the conventional heads. 3.4 Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has materially erred in deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that looking to the number of claimants, the learned tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. 3.5 Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 16. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 39 years, the learned tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 15. 3.5 Mr. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in applying multiplier of 16. It is submitted that as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 39 years, the learned tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 15. In support of his above decision, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 S.C. 3104 . Making above submissions and relying upon the above decision, it is requested to allow the present appeal to the aforesaid extent. 4. Mr. Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has stated at the bar that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the material on record and to put to an end the litigation, if instead of 50% rise, 40% rise is considered while considering the future income, the claimants have no objection. He has requested to pass appropriate order accordingly. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the findings of the learned tribunal on contributory negligence is not under challenge. The appeal is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company only on quantum of amount awarded by the learned tribunal. 5.2 The learned tribunal has awarded total amount of Rs. 47,70,900/- as under:- Sr.No. Head Amount (Rs.) A Dependency benefit : (i) Actual salary/income 2,70,000/- (ii) Prospective Income 4,05,000/- (iii) Deduction of amount spent by deceased on himself 0,81,000/- (iv) Dependency benefit 3,24,000/- (v) Multiplier 16 A Loss of dependency benefit 48,60,000/- B Conventional amount for loss of estate. 1,00,000/- C Conventional amount for loss of consortium 00,50,000/- D Funeral expenses 00,10,000/- E Transportation 00,02,000/- F Total compensation 5% negligence of deduction deducted. 50,22,000/- - 02,51,100/ --------------- 47,70,900/- G Interest Rate 9 per cent 5.3 While awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,70,000/- per annum, which is not disputed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. However, thereafter the learned tribunal has added 50% towards future rise in income. 50,22,000/- - 02,51,100/ --------------- 47,70,900/- G Interest Rate 9 per cent 5.3 While awarding future loss of income, the learned tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,70,000/- per annum, which is not disputed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. However, thereafter the learned tribunal has added 50% towards future rise in income. There is broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that instead of 50% future rise, the future rise be considered at 40%. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite any further reasoned order while considering the future rise in income at 40%. Even otherwise, considering the rise in income in last three years, we are of the opinion that 40% future rise can be said to be just and proper. It is also required to be noted that while awarding future rise in income, the learned tribunal has not considered income tax at all. Considering the rate of tax which was prevailing at the relevant time, at least 10% was required to be deducted towards income tax. 5.4 Looking to the number of claimants and as per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others (supra), as the number of claimants were 5, only 1/4th was required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead the learned tribunal has deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased. 5.5 It is true that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others (supra), multiplier of 15 is required to be applied, however, considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were there at the relevant time, we do not propose to interfere with the multiplier of 16 applied by the learned tribunal while awarding future loss of income. 5.6 However, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is justified in making grievance that the learned tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 1,60,000/- under the conventional heads. As the accident had occurred in the year 1998, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 3894/2006, 3990/2006 and 481/2001, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,10,000/- under conventional heads. 1,60,000/- under the conventional heads. As the accident had occurred in the year 1998, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 3894/2006, 3990/2006 and 481/2001, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 1,10,000/- under conventional heads. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be interfered with. 6. The sum and substance of the above shall be that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 39,84,680/- as under:- 1. Rs.40,82,400/- Towards loss of depenency/loss of income. 2. Rs.01,10,000/- Towards conventional heads. 3. Rs.00,02,000/- Towards transportation charges. Rs.41,94,400/- Total compensation. (minus) Rs.02,09,720/- Deducted towards 5% contributory negligence of the deceased Rs.39,84,680/- Compensation awarded to the original claimants. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgement and Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 895 of 1998 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 39,84,680/- with interest at the rest of 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. On partly allowing the appeal, it goes without saying that the appellant - Insurance Company shall be entitled to get back the amount deposited over and above Rs. 39,84,680/- with interest at the rate of 9% thereon per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.