JUDGMENT R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 17.02.2017 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (A), Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.161 of 1999, the original claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988' for brevity). 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hakim for the appellants, Ms. Bhatt for respondent No.2. Though served, none appears for respondent No.1. 3. We have perused original Record and Proceedings. The record indicates that accident took place on 29.10.1998 on Halol - Kalol road near Kalol between one S.T. Bus bearing No.GJ-18-V-2539 and scooter which was driven by the deceased Arjunbhai. The record indicates that deceased was coming from Kalol and was to go to Boru approach situated on the other side of the road and therefore, the road coming from Halol and proceeding towards Kalol was curve road towards right and after Boru approach, the road was straight from West to East. The deceased died on the spot and FIR being I.C.R.No.271 of 1998 was lodged with Kalol Police Station. 4. It is the case of the original claimants that deceased - Arjunsinh Chauhan was serving as Deputy Engineer in Narmada Project and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The original claimants preferred the claim petition under section 166 of the Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal and claimed Rs.80,00,000/- as compensation. One of the claimants came to be examined at Exh.20. FIR, charge sheet, panchanama of scene of offence, P.M. Note, affidavit of Sangitaben, affidavit of panch witness - Bharatsinh Mangalbhai were filed at Exh. 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 38 respectively. Service particulars of the deceased was produced at Exh.40. Driver of the S.T. Bus was examined at Exh.45. Copy of judgment of Criminal Court against the driver was produced at Exh.49. 5. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the fact that the deceased was 49 years old on the date of accident, considered income of the deceased at Rs.19,000/- per month including prospective income. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses I.e. Rs.12,700/- per month, applied multiplier of 12 and determined compensation under head of future prospective income at Rs.18,28,800/- Over and above the same, the Tribunal also awarded compensation towards loss of estate and other conventional head to the tune of Rs.45,200/- . The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses I.e. Rs.12,700/- per month, applied multiplier of 12 and determined compensation under head of future prospective income at Rs.18,28,800/- Over and above the same, the Tribunal also awarded compensation towards loss of estate and other conventional head to the tune of Rs.45,200/- . The Tribunal also awarded compensation towards the damage to property to the tune of Rs.6,000/- and thus, awarded Rs.18,80,000/- as total compensation. 6. Considering the manner of accident which occurred, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the drivers of vehicles i.e. S.T. Bus and scooter were negligent to the extent of 75% and 25% respectively and thus, awarded a sum of Rs.14,10,000/- with 9% interest from the date of petition till 31.12.2000 and interest at the rate of 7.5% thereafter. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the original claimants have filed present appeal. 7. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants - claimants has raised following two contentions. [7.1] Firstly, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in deducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses, even though dependents were more than four. According to Mr. Hakim, such deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased can be 1/4th of the income. [7.2] Secondly, it is contended that learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.45,200/- under conventional head, which may be enhanced to Rs.70,000/- as per ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Pranay Sethi reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Further it is contended that considering age of the deceased to be 49 years on the date of accident, multiplier of 13 should be applied in view of ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v/s. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Hakim, learned advocate submitted that the appeal be allowed and judgment and award be modified accordingly. 8. Per Contra, Ms. Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the appeal is merit-less and deserves to be dismissed. 9. No other and further submissions / contentions have been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 10. 8. Per Contra, Ms. Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the appeal is merit-less and deserves to be dismissed. 9. No other and further submissions / contentions have been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 10. Upon considering submissions of learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of Records and Proceeding, it clearly appears that there were more than four dependents and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. Similarly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier of 13 would be applicable on the case on hand, as deceased was 49 years old on the date of accident. Similarly, considering ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- under conventional head. 11. Upon recalculating the compensation under the head of future loss of income, the appellants would be entitled to compensation as under: Rs. 19,000/ p.m (income including prospective income) - Rs. 4750/- (1/4th towards personal expense) = Rs.14,250/- X 12 X 13 (Multiplier as the age of the deceased was 49 years) = 22,23,000/- The original claimants would also be entitled to Rs.70,000/- under Conventional head and Rs.6,000/- towards damage to property, which is awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants - original claimants would be entitled to total compensation as under: Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Future loss of income 22,23,000/- Conventional Head 70,000/- Damage to property 6,000/- Total Compensation 22,99,000/- 13. So far as negligence as determined by the learned Tribunal is concerned, same is not disturbed. Same is also not disputed by the learned advocate for the appellants. Thus, the appellants - original claimants would be entitled to Rs.22,99,000/- (minus) 25% negligence of the deceased, i.e. Rs.5,74,750/- = Rs. 17,24,250/-. 14. As the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.14,10,000/- to the appellants - original claimants, the appellants - original claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.3,14,250/- (Rs.17,24,250/- (minus) Rs.14,10,000/-.) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the additional amount as granted by this Court in this appeal along with proportionate interest and costs. 15. In view of above, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rest of impugned judgment and award stand unaltered. 15. In view of above, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rest of impugned judgment and award stand unaltered. The respondent No.2 shall deposit additional amount of Rs.3,14,250/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. before the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Record and Proceedings, if any, be transmitted to the concerned learned Tribunal.