JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. All these Appeals arise from common judgment and award dated 06th May, 1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kutch at Bhuj, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 124 of 1986, No. 126 of 1986 and No. 127 of 1986 as well as other cognate MACPs dealt with therein. First Appeal No. 2803 of 1993 is correspondent to MACP No. 124 of 186 whereas other two captioned Appeals relate to MACP No. 126 of 1986 and MACP No. 127 of 1986 respectively in so far as the said common judgment and award is concerned. The facts and issues being similar, all the three Appeals were heard together and are being dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants are the driver, owner and insurance company respectively, in all the appeals. As the facts are common and issues similar, all the three appeals are being considered and disposed of by this judgment simultaneously. 3. The claimants in each of the Appeal are the victims or the heirs of the victim in an accident which took place on 18th March, 1986 at about 21.45 hours at a place one-and-half kilometer away from Anjar on Anjar-Bhuj Road, at the junction of Bhachau By-pass Road. A truck bearing No. GTY-6785 owned by opponent No. 2 and driven by opponent No. 1, driven rashly, came from the opposite direction, that is from Bhuj side, and dashed with the Jeep bearing No. GTV-7146 in which the deceased and the injured persons had been travelling. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellants in each Appeal, learned advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Mehul Shah for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Rajani Mehta for respondent No. 6. Nobody appeared, though served, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 4.1 Only aspect argued by the parties contesting was the quantum of compensation. Even otherwise, this Court having gone into the facts, evidence on record and judgment and award of the Tribunal, the findings and the conclusions by the Tribunal on the other aspects of negligence, etc., were noticed to be just, proper and legal. 4.2 The court considered the facts involved in each of the case in the appeals and perused the relevant evidentiary material, documents and depositions. First Appeal No. 2803 of 1993 5. 4.2 The court considered the facts involved in each of the case in the appeals and perused the relevant evidentiary material, documents and depositions. First Appeal No. 2803 of 1993 5. As far as MACP No. 124 of 1986 from which First Appeal No. 2803 of 1993 arises, the same was preferred by the widow and other heirs being two minor children and father of the deceased Pratapsinh Karsanji Parmar claiming total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- as originally claimed in the claim petition, subsequently submitted and revised at Rs. 10,25,000/-. In this Appeal, claim for jurisdiction was put at Rs. 10,00,000/- whereas for the purpose of court fees Rs. 04,04,170/-. 5.1 The deceased was serving as Supply Inspector in the Revenue Department and was a law graduate. His monthly income was Rs. 01,260/- by way of salary and he was getting Rs. 550/- as income from "Kutch Mitra" daily in which he has associated as an Artist working in the newspaper establishment. It was further the case of the claimants that the deceased was also earning Rs. 07,000-08,000/- yearly from the activity of preparing advertisement for private parties and title picture of the books as he was an artist. As regards income from salary and from said other source, salary certificate (Exh. 73) and certificate of the newspaper establishment (Exh. 82) are on record and supports the plea. 5.2 The Tribunal, for the purpose of arriving at a quantum of compensation, considered that the evidence suggested that the deceased had chance of promotion in his future career to reach pay-scale of Rs. 02,900/- per month plus admissible allowances and that he would have fetch total salary of Rs. 05,100/-every month. The Tribunal assessed on such basis the total income of Rs. 04,200/- and after applying one-third deduction towards personal expenses etc., and applying multiplier of 20, arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs. 06,72,000/-. 5.3 In Sarla Verma (Smt) v Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , after discussing the applicable decisions, the Supreme Court stated in paragraph 24 as under. "In Susamma Thomas [(2003) 2 SCC 148], this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. "In Susamma Thomas [(2003) 2 SCC 148], this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." (Para 24) 5.3.1 The aspect of deduction for personal expenses was settled with following proposition. "Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six." (Para 30) 5.4 An error was committed by the Tribunal in the calculation and arriving at a figure of compensation under this head. Salary was fixed at Rs. 01,660/- and in respect of which took the amount of Rs. 04,200/- as base. This was a misdirected calculation. Salary was fixed at Rs. 01,660/- and in respect of which took the amount of Rs. 04,200/- as base. This was a misdirected calculation. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , prospective income will be calculated after adding 50% in the actual monthly income. In the present case, monthly income was shown to be Rs. 01,600/- by way of salary and since the evidence on record was indicative that the deceased was engaged in artist work which was his additional source of income, adding Rs. 900/- lump sum in respect of earning received from all such engagements, the figure of actual income per month could be put to Rs. 02,400/-. Adding 50% towards prospective income, it would come to Rs. 03,600/-, one-fourth amount would be required to be deducted from Rs. 03,200/- towards personal expenses of the deceased. After this deduction, the figure arrived at will be Rs. 02,700/-. 5.5 Adopting multiplier of 20 was second error on part of the Tribunal. Having regard to Sarla Verma (supra), since the age of the deceased was 30 years on the date of accident, proper multiplier could be applied was 16, therefore the amount of compensation for the loss of dependency would be Rs. 02,700/- X 12 X 16 = Rs. 05,18,400/-. Keeping the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal, namely Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 02,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,170/- towards loss of gratuity, the total compensation payable would come to Rs. 05,50,570/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, evidence on record and applying the principles for calculating compensation as laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), the aforesaid arrived at amount of Rs. 05,50,570/- can be said to be just and proper compensation. First Appeal No. 2806 of 1993 6. This Appeal arises from Claim Petition No. 126 of 1986. The same was preferred by widow, a minor child and parents of deceased-Dhansukhlal Umiyashankar Ajani. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, subsequently revised to Rs. 19,76,210/-. The Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs. 07,04,170/-. In this Appeal, claim for jurisdiction was put at Rs. 15,00,000/- whereas for the purpose of court fees Rs. 04,54,170/-. 6.1 The deceased was aged 30 years, was serving as Supply Inspector and was drawing salary income of Rs. 01,660/- per month. 15,00,000/-, subsequently revised to Rs. 19,76,210/-. The Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs. 07,04,170/-. In this Appeal, claim for jurisdiction was put at Rs. 15,00,000/- whereas for the purpose of court fees Rs. 04,54,170/-. 6.1 The deceased was aged 30 years, was serving as Supply Inspector and was drawing salary income of Rs. 01,660/- per month. It was the case that he was also an author and writer as well as astrologer. From such occupation and work, he was earning Rs. 10,000-12,000/- per month. In this case, the appellant examined one Ashvinbhai Rajgor (Exh. 127) and produced statement (Exh. 132). 6.2 The evidence is on record to support the salary income of the deceased (Exh. 97). About the plea that he was author and writer as well, there is a clear and adequate evidence. The title books authored by him or compiled by him are on record (Exhs. 99, 100, 101, 101 and 102); two novels (Exh. 103 adn 104), the deceased had written. It is also evidenced (Exh. 98) that the deceased was "Jyotish Bhushan". It could hardly be denied that the deceased would have income from these occupation. His date of birth was shown to be 27th August, 1955 and he was a promising young man-cum-literate. 6.3 It was the case that he would have earned promotion and would have earned more from the said other occupations. The Tribunal proceeded to reason in the similar way as it did in the previous case of the deceased in MACP No. 124 of 1986 (First Appeal No. 2803 of 1993) and awarded similarly by taking salary at Rs. 04,200/- on the basis that he would have got such amount towards salary looking to the prospects of promotion etc. The same amount of compensation under different heads, namely Rs. 06,72,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 02,000/- towards funeral ceremony and Rs. 10,170/- towards loss of gratuity was awarded, and total amount awarded was Rs. 07,04,170/-. 6.4 In this case also, the Tribunal committed error in taking salary at Rs. 04,200/-. It is the actual salary adding 50% towards prospective income was required to be taken as a base. The second error on part of the Tribunal was adoption of multiplier of 20. The age of the deceased on the date of accident was shown to be 30 years. 04,200/-. It is the actual salary adding 50% towards prospective income was required to be taken as a base. The second error on part of the Tribunal was adoption of multiplier of 20. The age of the deceased on the date of accident was shown to be 30 years. Multiplier of 17 was required to be adopted. Considering the aspect that the deceased was engaged in astrological work as well as work of authorship of books, it would be reasonable to add Rs. 900/- towards income derived from such activity. Therefore, adding Rs. 900/- in the income of Rs. 01,660/-, amount comes to Rs. 02,400/-, adding 50% of the prospective income and further deducting one-fourth amount, figure of loss of dependency would have been arrived at by adopting proper multiplier. 6.5 Accordingly and keeping in mind the principles in Sarla Verma (supra), the calculation of compensation under the head of dependency loss would be Rs. 02,700/-X12X17 = Rs.05,50,800/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, evidence on record and applying the principles for calculating compensation as laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), the aforesaid arrived at amount of Rs. 05,50,800/- can be said to be just and proper compensation. First Appeal No. 2806 of 1993 7. This Appeal has reference to the common judgment and award in so far as it concerns MACP No. 127 of 1986, which was filed by a widow, four children and father of the deceased Bhikhalal Karshanbhai Rathod. Amount of compensation claimed was Rs. 08,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 05,52,400/-. In this Appeal, claim for jurisdiction was put at Rs. 08,00,000/- whereas for the purpose of court fees Rs. 03,52,400/-. The deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident. 7.1 According to the case of the claimants, the deceased was working as Supply Inspector in the Revenue Department and his income was Rs. 01,796/-. It was the case that he would have get promotion in due course. The Tribunal considered the deposition of same Ashvin Rajgor (Exh. 127) and statement at Exhibit 130, which showed the amount of salary and gratuity the deceased was receiving. The Tribunal reasoned that the deceased would have reached pay-scale of Rs. 02,540/-. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased based at Rs. 03,900/-. Multiplier of 17 was adopted. Ultimately, Rs. 05,30,400/- was awarded for loss of dependency, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. The Tribunal reasoned that the deceased would have reached pay-scale of Rs. 02,540/-. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased based at Rs. 03,900/-. Multiplier of 17 was adopted. Ultimately, Rs. 05,30,400/- was awarded for loss of dependency, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 02,000/- for funeral expenses and total amount of Rs. 05,52,400/- was awarded. 7.2 Having regard to the facts of the case, his salary was shown to be Rs. 01,796/-. It was actual salary at the time of accident which is required to be taken as a base. Therefore, taking Rs. 01,796/- as the amount of salary and adding towards prospective income at 50% being Rs. 900/-, and further deducting one-fourth amount from the total towards personal expenses of the deceased as the dependents do not exceed six, amount could be derived under the head of dependency benefit by applying correct multiplier of 14 as per Sarla Verma (supra) as the age of the deceased was 42 years. Applying the above process, Rs. 01,796/-+900/- would come to Rs. 02,696/-, divided by one-fourth which would come to Rs. 675/-, deducting it from Rs. 02,696/- would bring the figure of Rs. 02,020/-. Thus total amount would come to Rs. 02,020X12X14 = Rs. 03,39,360/-. Keeping the other amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 02,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation by applying the correct formula and correct multiplier as above, would come to Rs. 03,61,360/-. Having regard to the facts of the case, evidence on record and keeping the principles in Sarla Verma (supra) for calculating the compensation, the said amount of Rs. 03,61,360/- would be said to be just and proper compensation to be awarded to the claimants of this case. Interest In All Three Cases 8. In all three MACPs, the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 15% from the date of application till the amount is deposited. With regard to the aspect of interest, learned advocate for the appellants could successfully relied on decision of the Apex Court in Manalal Prabhudayal v. Oriental Insurance Company, 2006 (8) Scale 129 , decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 2449 of 2006 with Cross Objection No. 93 of 2008 decided on 04th June, 2012 as also another judgment of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company v. Amar Siklikar, 1993 (1) GLR 270 . In the totality of the facts adn circumstances and considering the aspect that the accident had occurred in the year 1986, 12% interest would be reasonable to be allowed on the amount of compensation. 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, all the three Appeals are allowed in part. "(i) First Appeal No. 2803 of 1993 is partly allowed by holding that the claimants of MACP No. 124 of 1986 would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 05,50,570/- instead of what is awarded and the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% instead of 15% from the date of application till the date of deposit; (ii) First Appeal No. 2805 of 1993 is partly allowed by holding that the claimants of MACP No. 126 of 1986 would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 05,50,800/- instead of what is awarded and the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% instead of 15% from the date of application till the date of deposit; (iii) First Appeal No. 2806 of 1993 is partly allowed by holding that the claimants of MACP No. 127 of 1986 would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 03,61,360/- instead of what is awarded and the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% instead of 15% from the date of application till the date of deposit." 10. The common judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 06th May, 1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kutch at Bhuj in so far as three Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 124, 126 & 127 of 1986 shall stand modified accordingly. The decree shall be drawn in the aforesaid terms. The amount which may became payable back to the insurance company by virtue of the aforesaid partially allowing the aforesaid three Appeals and modification of the award, shall go to the insurance company. The appellant-insurance company shall be entitled to the refund of the same. Record & Proceedings shall be sent back without delay. Appeal Partly Allowed.