JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 2.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi 7), Nadiad in Claim Petition No. 1021 of 1998, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short). 2. As can be gathered from the record of the appeal, the accident occurred on 20.04.1998 on National Highway No. 8. It is the case of the original claimants that when deceased Saukatkhan Gulamhusain was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-7-P-4597 and was passing through Kurai Chokadi on National Highway No. 8, Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-17-X-4500 came from behind him on full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Motorcycle, because of which, the deceased Saukatkhan Gulamhusain was sustained injuries on leg and died during the treatment. The record also indicates that before deceased Saukatkhan Gulamhusain scummed to the injury, he was treated by one Dr. Rajiv Shah and was operated twice and ultimately died on 08.05.1998 i.e. almost after 18 days from the date of accident. The present claim petition was filed by the original claimants and claimed compensation of Rs. 30 lakh. It was the case of the original claimants that deceased Saukatkhan Gulamhusain was 28 years old on the date of accident and he was partner in one firm H.R. Corporation with 20% as working partner and was thus, earning Rs. 10,000/- in total. It is also the case of the claimants that the deceased was a contractor and had contracts with FCI Nadiad, FCI Surat etc. It is also the case of the original claimants that during the treatment of 18 days of deceased Saukatkhan Gulamhusain original claimants had incurred expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/- on medicine and Rs. 20,000/- on special diet and Rs. 5000/- on transportation. The original claimants also relied upon the documentary evidence such as FIR and Panchnama as well as charge sheet at Exh. 45. The statement given by the driver of the truck before the police was also brought on record by way of Exh. 65. The original claimants also filed an affidavit at Exh. 50 and the Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded Rs. 18,69,500/- with 12% interest from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 2.1. 65. The original claimants also filed an affidavit at Exh. 50 and the Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded Rs. 18,69,500/- with 12% interest from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 2.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 3. Heard Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Hashmukh Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-original claimants. It was pointed out by the learned advocates for the appellant as well as original claimants that liability is not denied and therefore, the presence of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being driver and owner of the truck is not necessary for deciding the present appeal and we have also perused the original record and proceedings of the case. 4. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant has raised the following contentions: That the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses even though three dependents were their and according to Mr. Parikh such deduction should be 1/3rd of the total income. 4.1. It was also contended by Mr. Parikh that deceased was 28 years of age on the date of accident and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 18 instead of 17. 4.2. It was contended that discretion exercised by the Tribunal by awarding 12% interest is an error apparent as considering the bank rate prevailing on the date of accident i.e. 20.04.1998, the Tribunal ought to have awarded 9% interest. On the aforesaid three grounds, it was contended by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the appellant that appeal be allowed and impugned judgment and award be modified. 5. Per contra, Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned advocate for the original claimants has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the original claimants has contended that the Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18 and which does not require any modification as the deceased Saukatkhan Gulamhusain was 28 years of age on the date of accident. Mr. Parikh also contended that similarly the Tribunal has committed no error in deducting 1/4th from the income as personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. Mr. Mr. Parikh also contended that similarly the Tribunal has committed no error in deducting 1/4th from the income as personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. Mr. Parikh has further contended that discretion exercised by the Tribunal by awarding 12% interest p.a. is proper and even considering the bank rate prevailing in the year 1998. Mr. Parikh contended that appeal is merit less and same deserves to be dismissed. No other and further submissions/contentions have been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6. Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the Record and Proceedings of the case, clearly transpires that deceased Saukatkhan Gulamhusain was 28 years of age on 20.04.1998 i.e. on the date of accident and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another reported in 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the original claimants shall be entitled to multiplier of 17. Similarly, it is an admitted position that the deceased had three dependents, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the deduction towards personal expenses has to be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. 7. As far as contention of interest is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12%, which is on much higher side. Considering the observations made by the learned Tribunal in para 16 of the impugned judgment and award and considering the prevailing bank rate even in the year 1998, we deem it necessary to restrict the interest at the rate of 9% instead of 12%. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, therefore, the respondents - original claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: "Rs. 1,27,500/- (Prospective Income) Rs. 42,500/- (1/3rd towards personal income = Rs. 85,000/- X 17 (Multiplier as the age of the deceased was 28 years) = 14,45,000/-." The original claimants would be also entitled to Rs. 1,50,500/- under the different heads as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,95,000/- with 9% interest from the date of application till its realization. 8. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 1,50,500/- under the different heads as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 15,95,000/- with 9% interest from the date of application till its realization. 8. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, it may be noted that present appeal is only restricted to Rs. 1,25,000/- and therefore, the same is restricted to the said amount only. The Registry is directed to remit Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant to the Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal shall refund the amount as per modified award to the appellant forthwith. The record and proceeding of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.