JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Record and Proceedings in the captioned Appeal which is of the year 2003, were called for by order dated 18th March, 2015, as earlier the record was not received and was not available. 1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Rajni Mehta for the appellant Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr. H.N. Brahmbhatt for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The rest of the respondents, though served, did not appear. 2. This Appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 28th August, 2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (A/I), Nadiad being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 928 of 1992. Thereunder the Tribunal awarded to the claimants-the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, total amount of Rs. 08,27,072/- with 9% interest, holding that opponent Nos. 1 to 3 were liable jointly and severally to pay the said compensation. 3. One Ratilal Vitthaldas Dave died in the accident which took place on 09th June, 1992 at Kheda-Nadiad Highway, near Kheda River Bridge. He was M.A., Ph.D. and was working as a Professor in college. The deceased was travelling in Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. GJ-1k-4555 which dashed with the milestone on the wrong side. As a result, the said vehicle-the Ambassador Car turned turtle and plunged into nearby drainage. Said Ratilal Dave sustained injuries in the accident, to which he later on succumbed to. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured by the appellant Insurance Company. The applicants-heirs claimed Rs. 11,00,000/- towards compensation in their claim petition for the death of their bread earner. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. 3.1 The Tribunal had before it the evidence to suggest the income of the deceased in the nature of Pay Certificate at Exh. 38, Income-tax Form No. 16 for the period from 01st April, 1991 to 31st March, 1992 (Exh. 39). The salary-slip showed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 07,335/- and the total income was indicated to be Rs. 82,668/- in the Exhibit 39 document. On the basis of Exhibit 40 certification by the employer, the Tribunal reasoned that if the deceased would not have died in the accident, his pay at the time of retirement could have been Rs. 15,735/- in the month of June, 1996. The Tribunal took, on the basis of the said evidence, prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 11,535/-, which was by adding Rs. 15,735/- in the month of June, 1996. The Tribunal took, on the basis of the said evidence, prospective income of the deceased at Rs. 11,535/-, which was by adding Rs. 07,335/- and Rs. 15,735/- and dividing the total sum by two. As the deceased was 56 years of age, multiplier 8 was adopted. The case of the claimants about the deceased having other income from the source of agricultural land as well as income from paper setting work was considered. In the final analysis, the Tribunal arrived at a total amount of Rs. 08,27,072/- to be paid as compensation with 9% interest from the date of application till realisation. The appellant company is aggrieved by the judgment and award. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the quantification of yearly income was not properly calculated. He submitted that tax was required to be deducted before arriving at the income figure. It was submitted that the deceased was aged more than 50 years which aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. He submitted that after arriving at net-income from source of salary, agricultural income and paper setting work and after deducting personal expenses therefrom, further tax at the rate of 40% was required to be deducted. He submitted that if the compensation is calculated properly, the award was excess by about Rs. 04,27,000/-. 5. Examining the judgment and award in light of and with reference to the evidence on record, as far as the income aspect of the deceased is concerned, his income for the period from 01st April, 1991 to 31st March, 1992, that is for the Assessment Year 1992-93, was reflected in Exhibit 39 document which was Form 16 of the Income-tax, which showed the figure of income, standard deduction and other tax calculations showing refundable tax of Rs. 835/-. In that total salary for the said period was mentioned at Rs. 82,668/-. The accident took place on 09th June, 1992. Exhibit 38 was the Last Pay Certificate on record which showed total receipt in June, 1992 paid to the deceased by way of basic salary, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and medical allowance to be Rs. 07,335/-. It was, therefore, reasonable to take the said figure of Rs. 07,335/- as acceptable income for calculating the compensation as it reflected the salary in respect of the very month of the accident. 07,335/-. It was, therefore, reasonable to take the said figure of Rs. 07,335/- as acceptable income for calculating the compensation as it reflected the salary in respect of the very month of the accident. The net salary amount for the aforesaid period from 01st April, 1991 to 31st March, 1992 as per Exhibit 39 comes to Rs. 82,668/- which is arrived at after tax calculation though round figure of Rs. 83,000/- may be taken. 5.1 The deceased was 56 years of age and was due to retire in the year 1994 on reaching superannuation age of 58 years. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , it is held that where the age of the deceases is more than 50 years, no addition should be allowed in the income for future. The Tribunal, on this count, misdirected itself when it considered Exhibit 40 which showed that the deceased would have received Rs. 15,735/- per month in the month of June, 1996 as the deceased would have already retired in 1994 itself. It was on the basis of such figure mentioned at Exhibit 40 Certificate that the Tribunal calculated average income as Rs. 11,535/- by process of adding Rs. 07,335/- and Rs. 15,735/-, dividing the sum by figure of 2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and in view of admitted position that the deceased was due to retire in 1994, the income with reference to the month of June, 1996 could not have been taken for calculation. As the age of the deceased was 56 years, as far as the salary income head was concerned, no further addition was required to be made towards consideration of prospective income. 5.2 The case of the applicants that deceased had income from other sources stands fortified from the evidence on record. It was the case that the deceased was an agriculturist and had 05 acres of land. It was evidenced from abstract of Village Form 7/12 (Exh. 41) that the land survey Nos. 416 and 419/1 was standing in the name of the applicant-widow Dave Nirmalaben Ratilal. It was agricultural land and crops were shown to have been taken from the said land. The 7/12 abstract were also produced in respect of other land, which was shown to be in joint names. 41) that the land survey Nos. 416 and 419/1 was standing in the name of the applicant-widow Dave Nirmalaben Ratilal. It was agricultural land and crops were shown to have been taken from the said land. The 7/12 abstract were also produced in respect of other land, which was shown to be in joint names. In any view, it was proper on part of the Tribunal to reason that the deceased would have helped in the agricultural work by supervising and in that regard, monthly income from agricultural land was taken at Rs. 01,000/- per month. This income was properly deduced by the Tribunal. 5.3 Furthermore, the applicants could show by virtue of Exhs. 44-45 Certificates that the deceased who was a Professor in the college, was used to be entrusted the paper setting work as well as work of examiner, towards which remuneration of Rs. 900/- was shown to have been received. As there is a clear evidence about the deceased getting work of examiner and paper setting, it is reasonable to assume that he would be getting, if not every month, intermittently such work and earning remuneration out of it. Such remuneration amount may be taken at Rs. 6000/- annually as for one such assessment, he is shown to be getting Rs. 900/- as above. 5.4 In addition to above, the record showed that the deceased was also engaged in writing and compiling books. The documents at Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 50 go to show that he had written and/or compiled and published certain books. He had published Pruthvichandra Charitra-Adhyayan published by Gajanan Pustakalaya, Surat. He compiled Pruthvichandra Charitra (Vaag Vilas) authored by Manikya Sundar Suri which was a book published by Patel-Raval Publishers. The deceased had compiled another book titled Chandrahasakhayan of poet Premanand which was published by the same publisher. The deceased compiled a book called 'Narsinh Mehta-Na Pada' published by L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad. He compiled Pruthvichandra Charitra (Vaag Vilas) authored by Manikya Sundar Suri which was a book published by Patel-Raval Publishers. The deceased had compiled another book titled Chandrahasakhayan of poet Premanand which was published by the same publisher. The deceased compiled a book called 'Narsinh Mehta-Na Pada' published by L.D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad. Though the Tribunal has disregarded this part and source of income on the ground that any receipt of royalty has not been produced, since the factum of the above books compiled and written by the deceased is clearly born out from the record, it would be reasonable to accept the case that deceased was * 5.5 It was the case of the applicants also as averred in the claim petition that the deceased had undertaken a work of preparing research thesis on the subject 'Uttar Gujarat Ni Boli' and it comes in the evidence that he had completed more than 50% work in receipt of the said research thesis. It is the case that had the work been completed during the life-time of the deceased, he would have get amount of Rs. 02.00 lakhs towards royalty. Therefore the evidence on record was suggestive of the fact that the deceased was engaged in literary work of writing books, doing research, etc. It is reasonable to conclude that from such work also, the deceased had earning. 5.6 The deceased was a literary person. He was holding Doctorate in literature and language. Besides his main occupation of Professorship, he was shown to have been regularly engaged in additional literary activities and work. The deceased was thus intellectual with a capacity to earn by doing such literary activity engaging himself in such related work even after his retirement. As far as the publications and compilation of books which is evident from the aforesaid exhibits, though the Tribunal has overlooked the same as the source of income on the ground that royalty receipts were not produced on record, there would be nothing wrong to presume that the deceased was in receipt of income from such work. As stated above, the deceased would be presumed to have continued such work even after his retirement and under this count, the prospective income has to be credited for him. As stated above, the deceased would be presumed to have continued such work even after his retirement and under this count, the prospective income has to be credited for him. 5.7 Looking to the fact that the deceased was an intellectual and literary person, it is safe to assume that even after retirement as Professor, he could have secured private earning avenue in his field of language and literature or in teaching, so as to earn reasonable amount. His prospects for future income to some extent therefore could not be ruled out. Considering the existing work of literature as evidenced above and considering the likely future engagement in such work, the total earning of the deceased on the said score could be taken minimum as Rs. 2000/- per month together. 6. Thus, calculating the total sum of income for the deceased which would comprised of Rs. 83,000/- as net salary income as discussed in paragraph 5 above, Rs. 12,000/- annually (Rs. 01,000 X 12) towards income from agriculture land as discussed in paragraph 5.2 above, Rs. 6000/- annually being the income as remuneration as paper setter and examiner and Rs. 24,000/- (Rs. 02,000 X 12) in respect of existing literary work and compilations and writings of books, etc., and for such future prospective, makes total of Rs. 01,25,000/-. Deducting one-fourth amount towards dependency as there are four members in the family, amount comes to Rs. 94,000/-. Since the age of the deceased was 56 years, as per Sarla Verma's (supra) case, multiplier of 8 would apply and thus total amount would come to Rs. 07,52,000/- (Rs. 94,000X8). In this amount of Rs. 07,52000/-, adding Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of asset and further Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, the total amount would come to Rs. 07,82,000/-. As per the calculation of the Tribunal, the total amount awarded is Rs. 08,27,000/-. Even if the amount awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be marginally higher, the total figure of compensation as awarded cannot be said to be an excessive compensation. Even if the compensation awarded is marginally higher, it does not cease to be just and proper compensation in light of the cumulative facts, status and the earning capacity of the deceased revealed from evidence on record. It would not furnish a ground to interfere taking totality of the facts and the evidence on record. 7. Even if the compensation awarded is marginally higher, it does not cease to be just and proper compensation in light of the cumulative facts, status and the earning capacity of the deceased revealed from evidence on record. It would not furnish a ground to interfere taking totality of the facts and the evidence on record. 7. In light of the aforesaid discussion, though the reasoning of the Tribunal in its judgment and award is fraught with certain errors and wrong calculation is adopted in assessing the income, in total view, the judgment and award is not interfered with, though it shall stand substituted by the aforesaid reasoning and findings. As far as the total quantum awarded by the Tribunal as per the judgment and award is concerned, the same is not found proper, hence not to be interfered with. The Appeal therefore does not require to be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the court concerned.