JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.880 of 2007, the appellant-insurance Company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:- 2.1 That, the accident occurred on 19.10.2006, Nr. Bhalaram Patiya. As the record indicates, the deceased was driving a tanker bearing registration no. GJ-1 V-5437 and when he reached Bhalaram Patiya, one Piago rickshaw was stationed, ahead of the tanker and therefore, the deceased had to stop his vehicle. It is the case of the original claimants that at that moment, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-12 X-3653 being driven by respondent no.8 herein came from the other side being driven in an excessive speed and in negligent manner and dashed with Piago rickshaw and the impact of the same was such that it also dashed with the tanker and it was dragged to about 20 ft. backwards. The deceased – Subhashbhai sustained serious injuries and expired. 2.2 The original claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-. It was the case of the original claimants that the deceased was 38 years old and was doing business of transportation and oil products and was earning Rs.45,000/- per month from the said business. One of the original claimants - Kalavatiben, wife of the deceased was examined at Exh.23 and another witness – Ramasharesingh Balsessingh Rajput was also examined. The original claimants also relied upon the FIR at Exh.29, Panchnama of the scene of offence at Exh.30, inquest Panchnama at Exh.32, postmortem report of the deceased at Exh.33 and in order to prove the income, relied upon the income-tax returns for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 at Exhs.26 to 28 respectively. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence on record, considered the income-tax returns of 3 years and determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.16,863/- and gave benefit of prospective income to the tune of 40% and after deducing one-fourth towards personal expenses and applying 15 multiplier awarded an amount of Rs.31,87,800/- as compensation under the head of future loss of income. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.70,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.32,57,800/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization while partly allowing the claim petition and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant – insurance Company. 3. Heard Mr Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant – insurance Company and Mr. Mayur Rajguru, learned advocate for the original claimants. 4. This Court, by an order dated 2.4.2019, had passed the following order:- “In view of the limited issue and contention raised against the judgment and award, namely, on the ground that while determining the income, the learned Tribunal has not taken out into account the requirement to deduct the income-tax, following order is passed:- Notice for final disposal, returnable on 30.4.2019.” The appeal is therefore taken up for final disposal as per the aforesaid order. The learned advocates were heard extensively. 5. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the only question which arises in this appeal is that while considering the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has not deducted the income-tax which was paid and therefore, the compensation under the head of future loss of income is excessively awarded by the Tribunal. Mr. Mehta, relying upon the income-tax returns, copies of which were also produced at Exhs.26, 27 and 28, contended that in all the 3 years, the deceased had paid income-tax which is not deducted from the income. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award is erroneous to the said extent, which deserves to be modified by partly allowing the appeal. It was also contended that though other grounds are raised in the memo of appeal, the appellant raises the aforesaid ground of wrong determination of income only. 6. Mr. Mayur Rajguru, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently opposed the appeal and has submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation and it was contended that the appeal, being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further submissions, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. 6. Mr. Mayur Rajguru, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently opposed the appeal and has submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation and it was contended that the appeal, being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further submissions, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. The short question, as noted hereinabove, which arises in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not deducting the income-tax while determining the monthly income of the deceased or not. The income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2003-04 at Exh.26 indicates that the income from business of the deceased for the said year was Rs.1,43,105/- and the TDS was of Rs.7,154/- and he had paid income-tax of Rs.5,885/-. Similarly as per the income-tax return at Exh.27, income for the Assessment Year 2004-05 was Rs.2,03,640/- and the income-tax which was paid by the deceased was Rs.12,777/- and the TDS was to the tune of Rs.8,625/-. Similarly, as per the income-tax return at Exh.28, income of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was Rs.2,60,320/- and TDS was of Rs.9,050/- and the income-tax of Rs.195/- was paid by the deceased. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), income would mean gross income minus tax paid and the Tribunal, while determining the income of the deceased, has not deducted the income-tax paid during 3 years while averaging the income of the deceased for the Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2006-06. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore the income-tax paid by the deceased deserves to be deducted. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), therefore the income-tax paid by the deceased deserves to be deducted. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion therefore, the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income as under:- Rs.1,43,105/- Income for the Assessment Year 2003-04 + Rs.2,03,640/- Income for the Assessment Year 2004-05 + Rs.2,60,320/­ Income for the Assessment Year 2005-06 = Rs.6,07,065/- Total income of 3 years - Rs.42,361/- Income-tax of 3 years = Rs.5,64,704/- Average income of 3 years / 3 Divided by 3 = Rs.1,88,235/- Yearly income / 12 Divided by 12 = Rs.15,686/- Monthly income - Rs.3,921/- One-fourth towards personal expenses = Rs.11,765/- Total monthly income + Rs.4,706/- 40% prospective income = Rs.16,471/- Monthly income X 12 Yearly = Rs.1,97,652/- Yearly income X 15 Multiplier = Rs.29,64,780/- Compensation under the head of loss of future income 9. Thus, the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income at Rs.29,64,780/-. Over and above the same, the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- as compensation under the conventional heads and thus, the respondents – original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.30,34,780/- with 8% interest per annum and costs from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.32,57,800/-, the appellant–insurance Company would be entitled to refund of Rs.2,23,020/- with proportionate interest and costs. The Tribunal shall refund the said amount to the appellant – insurance Company forthwith. Rest of the impugned judgment and award remains as it is. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 11. In view of the fact that the main appeal is disposed of, Civil Application is also disposed of.