JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 26th September 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court No. 14, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1624 of 1998 and allied claim petitions, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity). 2. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that four different claim petitions were filed, being M.A.C.P. No. 1621/1998, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 85,000/-; M.A.C.P. No. 1622/1998, wherein the Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 1,54,000/-; M.A.C.P. No. 1623/1998, wherein the Tribunal was pleased to grant compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- and in M.A.C.P. No. 1624/1998, the compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Ms. Sharmishta A. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company has candidly submitted that the Insurance Company has accepted the award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 1621/1998, 1622/1998 and 1623/1998, as the amount of award being reasonable, and the present appeal is preferred only against judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 1624/1998. 3. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal :- 3.1 That, on 23.10.1998, deceased Arvindbhai along with other twelve persons were travelling in a jeep in Rewasi District of Haryana State, bearing registration No. GJ-04-D- 4241, at about 05.00 a.m. As per the respondents No.1 to 3- original claimants, an unknown truck dashed with the jeep, because of which all the occupants received several and serious injuries, out of which, deceased Arvindbhai-husband of the original claimant No.1 sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. An FIR was lodged with jurisdictional Police Station at Ex. 24 and panchnama of the place of occurrence was also produced at Ex. 26. The respondents No. 1 to 3-original claimants, thereafter, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal and claimed compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/=. 3.2 It was the case of the respondents No.1 to 3-original claimants that deceased Arvindbhai was a qualified ITI trained and was working for Irrigation Department as an Engineer with a contractor. It was the case of the respondents No.1 to 3- original claimants that deceased Arvindbhai was earning Rs. 25,00,000/=. 3.2 It was the case of the respondents No.1 to 3-original claimants that deceased Arvindbhai was a qualified ITI trained and was working for Irrigation Department as an Engineer with a contractor. It was the case of the respondents No.1 to 3- original claimants that deceased Arvindbhai was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month in toto and as per the say of the respondents No.1 to 3-original claimants, deceased Arvindbhai used to earn Rs. 8,000/- out of the work of contract and Rs. 4,000/- from other sources. Respondents No.1 to 3-original claimants relied upon a certificate issued by the Contractor as well as bank statements to buttress the contention as regards the income, but no one is examined to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, after appreciation of evidence on record, determined income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month from the work with the Contractor and Rs. 4,000/- per month from the other sources and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 15, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,80,000/- as compensation under the head of “dependency”. The Tribunal also further awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses, and thus, granted total compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the original claimants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sharmishta A. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company. Though served, no one appears for the respondents. Perused original record and proceedings. 5. Ms. Sharmishta A. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended as under: (1) That, the Tribunal, without any evidence on record and without any proof, has wrongly believed the income of the deceased Arvindbhai as Rs. 9,000/- per month in total. (2) According to Ms. Dave, in absence of any proof, even if it is considered that the deceased was a skilled person, his income cannot be more than Rs. 4,000/- per month from the contract work and similarly Rs. 1,200/- per month from other source. (3) According to Ms. Dave, the Tribunal ought to have determined income of the deceased as Rs. 5,200/- per month. Ms. 4,000/- per month from the contract work and similarly Rs. 1,200/- per month from other source. (3) According to Ms. Dave, the Tribunal ought to have determined income of the deceased as Rs. 5,200/- per month. Ms. Dave has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Shetty & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and has contended that principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court need to be applied to this matter as well. (4) Ms. Dave, however, submitted that appellant-insurance company does not deny its liability. 6. Though served, no one appears for and on behalf of the claimants or other respondents, and therefore, this Court thought it fit to refer original record and proceedings as well as the documents, which were supplied by Ms. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant. Only question, which is raised in this appeal is regards the income of the deceased. 7. We have gone through the original record and proceedings, copies of the certificate and bank certificate, which are produced by Ms. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance company. Upon re-appreciation of evidence on record, we find that there is no exact proof as regards the exact income of the deceased. The certificate, which was relied upon by the original claimants, indicates that the deceased Arvindbhai was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, however, no one is examined on behalf of the original claimants. Similarly, there is no other proof as regards income from other sources to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month; as contended by the respondents No.1 to 3-original claimants. However, the fact remains that the deceased was ITI trained skilled person. Accident occurred on 23rd October 1998. The original claimants have been able to prove that the deceased was a qualified and skilled person and was working with the Government contractor. The bank statements which relates to the period when deceased Arvindbhai was actively in the contract work shows transfer of an amount of Rs. 1 lac and more throughout the said period, which is evident from appreciating the transaction of the bills, as stated by learned advocate Ms. Dave. 8. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, income of the deceased from the work of contract as well as from other source, even considering qualification of the deceased Arvindbhai, can safely be fixed at Rs. Dave. 8. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, income of the deceased from the work of contract as well as from other source, even considering qualification of the deceased Arvindbhai, can safely be fixed at Rs. 6,000/- per month. 9. Upon going through the impugned judgment and award, we find that the Tribunal has not considered any prospective income and following the judgment of Pranay Shetty (Supra), the original claimants would be entitled to prospective income to the extent of 30%, as the age of the deceased-Arvindbhai was 41/43 years on the date of accident. The Tribunal has also erred in applying 15 multiplier, as the age of the deceased Arvindbhai was 41-43 years. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , appropriate multiplier would be 14. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the respondents No. 1 to 3-original claimants would be entitled to compensation under dependency benefits, as under: Rs. 6,000/- Income per month + Rs. 1,800/- 30% Prospective Income. = Rs. 7,800/- Income per month -Rs. 2,600/- One third towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.5,200/- Income per month X 12 Yearly = Rs. 62,400/- Yearly Income X 14 Multiplier = Rs. 8,73,600/- Total Compensation 10. Over and above the same, following the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Shetty (Supra), the respondents No. 1 to 3-original claimants would be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- under different conventional heads; including funeral expenses. Accordingly, the respondents No. 1 to 3-original claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 9,43,600/-. 11. Ms. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company, however, lastly contended that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest per annum, which is excessive and according to Ms. Dave, considering the date of the accident ie., 23rd October 1998, the same shall be reduced to 8% per annum. 12. Having gone through the above contention, we are of the opinion that even the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion and we do not think it fit to interfere or modify the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 8% per annum. 13. In view of the above, present appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award stands modified accordingly. The appellant-Insurance Company would be entitled to get refund of Rs. 13. In view of the above, present appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award stands modified accordingly. The appellant-Insurance Company would be entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,56,400/- with proportionate cost and interest and the same may be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company forthwith. 14. In view of the order dated 23.01.2009 passed by this court in Civil Application(For Stay) No. 3926 of 2008 in First Appeal No. 1504 of 2008, the appellant-Insurance Company was to deposit entire awarded amount within a period of four weeks. In light of the aforesaid, the appellant shall be entitled to refund of Rs. 1,56,400/. In case if the appellant has not deposited the said amount, the appellant shall deposit the amount, as awarded by this judgment within a period of two weeks from today. Rest of the impugned award stands unaltered. There shall be no order as to the costs in this Appeal. Registry is directed to send back record and proceedings to the Tribunal forthwith.