JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Gandhinagar, in MACP No.84 of 2009, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. As per the claimants, the accident took place on 21.01.2009 at about 4.00 PM. According to the claimants, deceased Kanubhai was driving his motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ18R2464 in a moderate speed and on correct side of the road and when he reached village Mahundra on service road of Himmatnagar Ahmedbad highway, a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. GJ1HQ9619 tried to overtake the vehicle which was going ahead and the left portion of the Maruti car dashed with the motorcycle. According to the respondents-claimants, the deceased Kanubhai sustained serious injuries and was firstly taken to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar and then shifted to private hospital, Ahmedabad and back to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar and died on the same day. The FIR was lodged at exhibit 28. It was the case of the respondents-claimants that the deceased Kanubhai was working as ASI in police department and was having monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and was also earning Rs.5,000/- to 7,000/- per month from agriculture and thus, it was the case of the respondents-claimants that income of the deceased was Rs.22,000/- per month and the respondents claimants filed the present claim petition under section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Maniben wife of deceased Kanubhai Desai was examined at exhibit 27 and respondents-claimants also relied upon documentary evidence such as FIR at Exhibit 28, copy of the panchnama of the place of offence at exhibit 29, inquest panchnama at exhibit 30, PM Note of deceased at exhibit 31, Payslip of the deceased Kanubhai for the month of December 2008 at exhibit 32, Birth Certificate at exhibit 38, pay bill pertaining to holidays for the year 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 at exhibit 39. The driver of the car was also examined at exhibit 49. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the car was solely negligent and upon appreciating the evidence on record, relying upon the salary slip at exhibit 32, determined the income from salary of the deceased at Rs.9,650/- and Rs. The driver of the car was also examined at exhibit 49. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the car was solely negligent and upon appreciating the evidence on record, relying upon the salary slip at exhibit 32, determined the income from salary of the deceased at Rs.9,650/- and Rs. 2,500/- from agriculture and thus determined the income of the deceased at Rs.15,180/- and applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , awarded an amount of Rs. 15,02,160/- by applying multiplier of 11 as compensation under the head of future dependency loss. In addition to that, the Tribunal also further awarded Rs.35,000/- under different conventional heads and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.15,37,200/- (rounded off) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Hiren Modi, learned advocate for respondents 2 to 5original claimants. Though served, no one appears for respondent no.1. Perused the original Record and Proceedings. 4. Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant has contended as under- (1) That the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,180/. Mr. Nanavati contended that there is no evidence on record to even remotely prove the income from agriculture. (2) Mr. Nanavati further contended that even though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the age of the deceased on the date of the accident was 53 years and only 5 years of service was left, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarded 25% as prospective income. On the aforesaid ground, it was therefore contended that the impugned award deserves to be modified by allowing the appeal as prayed for. 5. Per contra, Mr. Hiren Modi has supported the impugned award. Mr. Modi however candidly submitted that there is no evidence to show the separate income of the deceased from agricultural operations, except the village form no. 7/12. Mr. Modi also candidly submitted that the village form no. 7/12 also indicates that the agricultural land is in joint name of the whole family. Mr. Modi contended that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 6. 7/12. Mr. Modi also candidly submitted that the village form no. 7/12 also indicates that the agricultural land is in joint name of the whole family. Mr. Modi contended that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 6. No other or further contentions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. Upon considering the submissions made and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is a matter of fact that the deceased Kanubhai was working as ASI with the police department of the State of Gujarat. The payslip at exhibit 32 indicates that the gross pay of the deceased was Rs.12,695/- and as far as relevant deduction is concerned, there was deduction of professional tax to the tune of Rs. 200/- per month. In order to butress the contention that the deceased had also further income from agriculture, the appellants have relied upon form No.7/12, which as such is not proved. Apart from the said fact, there is no material on record to show that the deceased had any separate income from the agricultural land as it was a joint family property and from the entries itself, it is evident, even if it is taken into consideration, the village form no.7/12, which is relied upon relates to survey no.712/13 of village Chala and the same is subsequent to the accident as name of respondent no.2, wife of deceased Kanubhai is shown in the village form no.7/12 as widow of Kanubhai and in absence of any reliable evidence, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has committed an error in believing that the deceased had income from agriculture also. However, in order to determine the monthly income of the deceased, reliance can straightway placed on payslip at exhibit 32 and as observed hereinabove, even Mr. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-original claimants has candidly submitted that there is no other evidence to show agricultural income of the deceased, the income of the deceased is therefore required to be determined based upon the payslip at exhibit 32, which would come to Rs.12,495/- per month, i.e., Rs.12,695/- Rs. 200 (professional tax). The Certificate at exhibit 38 establishes the fact that the deceased was 53 years old on the date of the accident. Hence, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. 200 (professional tax). The Certificate at exhibit 38 establishes the fact that the deceased was 53 years old on the date of the accident. Hence, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , the respondents original claimants would be entitled to prospective income as increase in the income to the tune of 15%, which would come to Rs.1,875/-. Over and above that, considering the number of dependents, 1/4th of the same is required to be deducted towards personal expenses and thus, the income per month would be - Rs. 12,495/+ Rs.1,875/- (15% prospective income) – Rs.3,592/- (1/4th deduction towards personal income) = Rs.10,778/- Accordingly, the yearly income would be Rs.1,29,336/- and applying multiplier of 11, the respondents-orig. Claimants would be entitled to Rs.14,22,696/- under the head of loss of dependency. In addition to that, the respondents-orig. Claimants would also be entitled to further additional amount of Rs.70,000/- under different conventional heads and thus, the respondents-claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,92,696/-. 8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,37,200/- and thus, the appellants would be entitled to refund of Rs.44,504/- with proportionate interest and costs. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent. The Tribunal shall refund the amount of Rs.44,504/- to the appellant-insurance company with proportionate interest and costs forthwith. R & P be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.