JUDGMENT : R.M Chhaya, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.2.2014 passed by the MACT (Aux.), Panchmahal at Godhra in MACP No. 1776 of 2007, the insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,63,200/- along with the proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization while partly allowing the aforesaid claim petition. 2. It is contended by the respondents - original claimants that on 18.10.2007, while deceased Jayeshkumar Parmar who happens to be the husband of the respondent no. 3/1 and father of respondent nos. 3/2 and 3/3 and son of respondent no. 3/4 met with an accident while he was walking on the road from Gadh Chundadi to Aerandi. It is the case of the original claimants that the vehicle which was Chhakada rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-17-U-5507 came in an excessive speed and hit the deceased who succumbed to the injuries. 3. It deserves to be noted that the original claim petition came to be filed by respondent nos. 3/1 to 3/5 as described hereinabove. However, during pendency of the appeal, original claimant no. 3/5 - Parmabhai Dahyabhai Parmar-father of the deceased Jayesh Parmar expired and therefore, he came to be deleted from the array of this Court by an order dated 9.6.2017 passed by this Court. 4. The original claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,60,000/-. On notice being served, reply was filed. The Tribunal framed issues at Exh.25 The original claimants as well as the insurance Company adduced evidence and more particularly, oral evidence was adduced by Jashodaben, wife of the deceased - respondent no. 3/1 at Exh.34 Over and above such evidence, the documentary evidence in form of FIR, spot Panchnama, inquest Panchnama, registration book of the rickshaw, P.M report was adduced being Exhs.29 to 33 and even the insurance policy was brought on record by way of Exh.42 After appreciating the evidence on record and upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month and considered the proportionate income to be 50% relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 and other decisions and determined the amount of dependency at Rs. 48,600/- per annum by deducting only one-tenth towards personal expenses and applying 17 multiplier, came to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 8,26,200/- under the head of loss of dependency income and further awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,000/- under the head of transportation charges and thus, jawarded a sum of Rs. 10,63,200/- along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the petition till its realization and thus, allowed the claim petition partly along with the proportionate costs. The present appeal is filed against the aforesaid judgment and award. 5. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant raised the following contentions:- 5.1 That, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income as even though no evidence to that effect was adduced by the claimants as merely on rough estimate, assessed the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. According to Mr. Nanavati, the actual net income should have been assessed. 5.2 It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only one-tenth of the income so assessed towards personal expenses relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). It was contended that considering the fact that more than 4 dependents are there, the Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth of the income. 5.3 Similarly, Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant also contended that the amount awarded towards the conventional heads is also an excessive side, that too, without any evidence on record and in fact such conventional amount is to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. It was therefore contended that the total compensation would come to Rs. 4,84,000/-. 5.4 Mr. Nanavati also lastly contended that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% and it was contended that it should be only 7.5% considering the present Bank rate. Mr. 25,000/-. It was therefore contended that the total compensation would come to Rs. 4,84,000/-. 5.4 Mr. Nanavati also lastly contended that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% and it was contended that it should be only 7.5% considering the present Bank rate. Mr. Nanavati therefore contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 6. As against this, Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the original claimants has supported the judgment and award and submitted that as per the compensation of Rs. 8,26,200/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency income is legal and proper and no interference is called for. Mr. Modi contended that the Tribunal has rightly deducted only one-tenth of the income towards personal expenses. Mr. Modi, however, candidly submitted that as far as the compensation awarded under the various heads being conventional expenses is concerned, the same is also proper keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the claim petition. It is also contended that the accident has occurred in 2007 and therefore, the Tribunal is correct in awarding interest at the rate of 9%. It is contended the appeal is meritless and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have produced on record the relevant documentary evidence for consideration of this Court. Upon considering the documentary evidence, more particularly Exhs. 29 to 33, the factum of accident having been occurred is not denied even by the appellant. 8. However, considering the issue of quantum, the question which arises in this appeal is to the effect that whether the Tribunal is correct in deducting only one-tenth of the income of the deceased and whether the Tribunal has correctly assessed the monthly income at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month while awarding amount of Rs. 8,26,200/- under the loss of dependency income. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it appears that the respondent-claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove their contention that the income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month and considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 2007, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 6,000/- per month and considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 2007, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. From the judgment and award, it also appears that the Tribunal has correctly given 50% enhancement towards future prospective income. However, in opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has erred in deducting only one-tenth of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. As the facts reveal, the deceased had 5 dependents. The facts which are considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court for one-tenth deduction in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Gopali, (2012) 12 SCC 198 does not exist in the case on hand and the Apex Court, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the same as an extraordinary case, deducted only one-tenth of the income. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), while deciding the issue of deduction for personal and living expenses, more particularly in Paragraph 30, has observed that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. Applying the said ratio of the case on hand, in the instant case, the deduction has to be one-fourth, wherein the deceased had 8 dependents including 4 sons and 1 daughter. In opinion of this Court therefore, following the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), considering the facts of this case, the deduction of personal expenses would-be one-third of the total income. 10. The Tribunal has not committed any error in applying 17 multiplier and the same is not even disputed by the appellant before this Court. Having come to this conclusion therefore, the respondent - claimants therefore would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,88,500/- towards loss of dependency income (4500 × 3/4th = 3375 × 12 × 17). 11. As far as the total compensation of Rs. 2,37,000/- awarded under the head of loss of consortium, loss of care and negligence for minor children, loss of estate, funeral expenses, transportation charges i.e. conventional heads in the facts and circumstances of the case, is also on a higher side as fixed by the Tribunal and in opinion of this Court, it can safely be assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2,37,000/- awarded under the head of loss of consortium, loss of care and negligence for minor children, loss of estate, funeral expenses, transportation charges i.e. conventional heads in the facts and circumstances of the case, is also on a higher side as fixed by the Tribunal and in opinion of this Court, it can safely be assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thus, in view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 6,88,500 towards loss of dependency income and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards all conventional heads, total Rs. 8,38,500/-. As far as rate of interest applied by the Tribunal being 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization is proper considering the fact that the date of accident is 18.10.2007 and considering the Bank rate then, the same does not require any interference. 12. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The Tribunal shall refund the amount of Rs. 2,24,700/- to the insurance Company along with proportionate cost.