JUDGMENT : MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award dated 22/8/2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Patan passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2416 of 2002 (Old MACP No.732/1997), by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said claim petition and has awarded total sum of Rs.6,19,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Rameshbhai Mafatlal, original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal to enhance the amount of compensation. 2. Deceased Rameshbhai Mafatlal died in a vehicular accident is not in dispute. Therefore, the present First Appeal is on the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal only. 3. That by the impugned Judgment and Award the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of dependency considering the net dependency at Rs.4000/- per month and thereafter applying multiplier of 12, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.5,76,000/- towards the loss of dependency. The learned tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection of the deceased father. The learned tribunal has also further awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- towards funeral expenses. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, more particularly considering the fact that the deceased was serving as an Electrician in O.N.G.C. In Mehsana and was having some agricultural land, the income of the deceased at the time of accident / death can safely be assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month. The aforesaid does not seem to be in much dispute by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 4. Considering the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 3 GLH 536, as the deceased at the time of accident was of the age within the age group of 40 to 50 years, 30% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects, which would come to Rs.11,700/- per month. Looking to the number of claimants, 1/3rd of the aforesaid is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the net loss of dependency would come to Rs.7800/- per month. Applying multiplier of 15, loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,04,000/-. Looking to the number of claimants, 1/3rd of the aforesaid is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the net loss of dependency would come to Rs.7800/- per month. Applying multiplier of 15, loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,04,000/-. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and others (supra), the original claimants shall also be entitled to a further sum of Rs.70,000/- in all under the conventional heads - different heads. Therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,74,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, instead of Rs.6,19,000/- as awarded by the learned tribunal. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and Award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be modified and the present First Appeal is required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 22/8/2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Patan passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2416 of 2002 (Old MACP No.732/1997), is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,74,000/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Present First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.