JUDGMENT : MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1276 of 1998, by which, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the said petition preferred by the original claimants – heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Bharatbhai Himmatlal Parikh, and has awarded a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for the death of the deceased Bharatbhai Himmatlal Parikh, the original opponent No.2- National Insurance Company – the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident, has preferred the present First Appeal No. 1493 of 2003. The original claimants have also preferred the Cross-Objections feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding Rs.25 lakhs only towards compensation for the death of the deceased. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present First Appeal and Cross-objections in a nutshell are as under: 2.1. That, in a vehicular accident which occurred on 27.6.1998, deceased Bharatbhai H. Parikh died. Therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Bharatbhai preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1276 of 1998 before the learned Tribunal claiming Rs.40 lakhs in all towards the compensation in different heads, for the death of the deceased Bharatbhai Parikh. It was case on behalf of the original claimants that the deceased at the time of the accident was aged 43 years of age, and that he was having qualification of B.E.Mechanical. That, at the time of accident, he was having his own business in the name and style of ‘B.H.Engineering’ and was earning Rs.12,893/- per month. It was also case on behalf of the original claimants, that the deceased was also a Director in the Company namely ‘Delta Engineering Company’ w.e.f. 1.4.1997 and was getting Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, according to the original claimants at the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.27,893/- per month. To prove the income, the original claimants have examined widow of the deceased-Artiben at Exh.23. The claimants also led the documentary evidences like Income Tax Returns of the deceased as well as the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Delta Engineering to prove the income of the deceased of Rs.15,000/- per month from Delta Engineering as a Director. To prove the income, the original claimants have examined widow of the deceased-Artiben at Exh.23. The claimants also led the documentary evidences like Income Tax Returns of the deceased as well as the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Delta Engineering to prove the income of the deceased of Rs.15,000/- per month from Delta Engineering as a Director. That, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal considered the loss of dependency at Rs.24,64,044/-, considered the income of the deceased at Rs.27.893/- per month and considered the prospective income at Rs.36,000/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd of the personal expenses of the deceased, and thereafter, applying the multiplier of 11, the learned Tribunal considered the loss of dependency at Rs.24,64,044/- and awarding further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.5,956/- for funeral charges, by the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate costs. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal, both the Insurance Companies as well as the original claimants have preferred the present First Appeal as well as Cross-objection. 4. Shri Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that, while considering the income of the deceased at the time of accident, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated and/or considered the deposition of Artiben, more particularly her cross-examination wherein she has specifically admitted that she has not produced any Books of Accounts of her husband. 4.1. It is further submitted by Shri Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, that even the Income Tax Returns of the preceding year was even filed after the death of the deceased and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have considered the Income Tax Returns which was filed subsequent to the death of the deceased. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Dakshes Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month from Delta Electro Tech Private Limited. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the Appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company. 5. 4.2. It is further submitted by Shri Dakshes Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month from Delta Electro Tech Private Limited. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the Appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company. 5. In the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, Cross-objections have been filed by the original claimants. Shri Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, as such, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.27,893/- per month. It is submitted that, therefore, as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered prospective income at Rs.27,893/- per month. 5.1. It is further submitted by Shri Sandip Shah, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that, as such, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that looking to the number of claimants and as per the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 5.2. It is further submitted that, as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 43 years of age, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 14 while awarding future loss of income. 5.3. However, considering the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Ors., reported in (2017) 3 GLH 536, Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing for the claimants has fairly conceded that looking to the age of the deceased, only 25% of the actual income of the deceased at the time of accident is required to be added while considering the prospective income. He has also fairly conceded that, as the Income Tax Returns of the preceding year was filed after the death of the deceased, by which the income of the deceased was shown at Rs.12,893/- per month. He has requested to consider the monthly income at Rs.9,976 per month as per the Income Tax Returns for the year 1996-97, which as such was filed prior to the death of the deceased. He has requested to consider the monthly income at Rs.9,976 per month as per the Income Tax Returns for the year 1996-97, which as such was filed prior to the death of the deceased. Therefore, he has requested to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month from B.H. Engineering. It is submitted that income of the deceased from Delta Electro Tech Private Limited at Rs. 15,000/- per month has been established and proved by producing on record resolution of Delta Engineering. It is submitted that, therefore, the income of the deceased at the time of accident can be considered at Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, he requested to pass appropriate order so far as future loss of income / loss of dependency is concerned. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and ors. (supra), he has also requested to award Rs.70,000/- in all under the conventional heads. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. We have considered and perused the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal. We have re-appreciated entire evidence on record from the record and proceedings available with us. 7. The deceased died in a vehicular accident is not disputed. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant – insurance company is also not in dispute. The original claimants claimed a total sum of Rs. 40 lakhs under different heads towards the compensation for the death of the deceased, who at the time of accident was aged 43 years and was B.E.Mechanical Engineer. That the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.27,893/- per-month, and thereafter, considering the prospective income at Rs.36,000 per month, while awarding future loss of income, and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure to be incurred by the deceased and has applying the multiplier of 11, the Tribunal ultimately has awarded a total sum of Rs.24,64,044/- towards loss of dependency. 7.1. However, considering the Income Tax Returns for the financial year 1996- 97 which was filed much before the death of the deceased, the income of the deceased Mr. Bharatbhai Himmatlal Parikh was Rs.9,976 per-month. Therefore, the income of the deceased from ‘B.H.Engineering’ can be considered to be Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was also a Director in ‘Delta Electro Tech’ and was getting Rs. Bharatbhai Himmatlal Parikh was Rs.9,976 per-month. Therefore, the income of the deceased from ‘B.H.Engineering’ can be considered to be Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was also a Director in ‘Delta Electro Tech’ and was getting Rs. 15,000/- per-month as a Director which has been established and proved by producing on record the resolution of the Company which has been produced at Exh.32. Under the circumstances, the income of the deceased at the time of the accident can be safely considered at Rs.25,000/- per-month. Considering the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and ors. (supra), and as the deceased at the time of accident was aged 43 years of age, 25% of the aforesaid is required to be added towards future rise in income, and therefore, the prospective income would come to Rs. 22,500/- per-month. The learned Tribunal has materially erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the prospective income, only 1/4th was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 43 years, and as per the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 14. Considering the aforesaid facts, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 35,43,750/-. The original claimants also shall be entitled to in all Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads as per the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and ors. (supra). Therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 36,13,750/- in all towards the compensation for the death of the deceased with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified and consequentially the Cross-objections preferred by the claimants are required to be allowed partly to the aforesaid extent. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Appeal preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company being First Appeal No. 1493 of 2003 deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Appeal preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company being First Appeal No. 1493 of 2003 deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. The Cross-objections preferred by the original claimants are hereby partly allowed and the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1276 of 1998 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 36,13,750/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. Cross-objections preferred by the original claimants are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.