JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 31.03.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Fast Track Court No. 2, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 1425 and 1431 of 2003, the appellants-original claimants have preferred present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 2. Both these appeals arise out of same accident and the same set of evidence adduced before the Tribunal and therefore, the same were heard together and are hereby disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellants-original claimants of First Appeal No. 663/2009 being father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Chitraben Nehalbhai Baxi, who was aged 30 years, preferred a claim petition being M.A.C.P No. 1425/2003 for compensation under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with 7.5 % p.a. interest from the date of filing of claim petition. It was the case of the original claimants that the deceased Chitraben Baxi was doing tuition at home and was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The claimants also relied upon the oral evidence of Nikhi Sanghavi at Exh.64 and also relied upon the certificate at Exh.38, which indicates that the deceased Chitraben Baxi was holding diploma in civil engineering and on basis of such evidence, the appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 4. In M.A.C.P. No. 1425/2003, the Tribunal considered the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the claimants have not been able to prove the income of the deceased Chitraben and determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses and applied 15 multiplier as the age of the deceased was 30 years on the date of accident and thus, awarded Rs. 3,60,000/- as compensation under the future loss of income. Over and above the same, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of loss of estate and mental pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral charges and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,85,000/- with 7.5 % interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 5. Over and above the same, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of loss of estate and mental pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral charges and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,85,000/- with 7.5 % interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 5. The appellants-original claimants of First Appeal No. 664/2009 being father and mother of their deceased son named Nehalbhai Bhalabhai Baxi, who was aged 31 years, preferred a claim petition being M.A.C.P. No. 1431/2003 for compensation under Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- along with 7.5 % p.a. interest from the date of filing of claim petition. The appellants relied upon oral evidence of appellant no. 1 Bhalabhai Baxi at Exh.49 and also relied upon the evidence of Administrative Assistant of the Company, in which the deceased was working at Exh.55 and also relied upon the documentary evidence as regards the income of the deceased at Exh.57 in form of certificate, in particular. 6. In M.A.C.P. No. 1431/2003, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased Nehalbhai Baxi at Rs. 7,500/- p.m. and considering the documentary evidence as regards his income, applied 15 multiplier and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as compensation under the head of future loss of income. Over and above the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the original claimants preferred these appeals against the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. Nos. 1425 and 1431 of 2003. 8. Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company in both the appeals. 9. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal: 9.1 That on 20.11.2003, at about 11:30 hours in the night, deceased Nehalbhai Bhalabhai Baxi and his deceased wife Chitraben Nehalbhai Baxi were coming from Rajkot to Ahmedabad in Luxury Bus bearing registration No. GJ-18T-8298 and when the said bus reached near the sim of village Navapura, Sarkhej Bavla road, at that time, the driver of the said luxury bus lost his control over the steering and turned turtle, due to which, the deceased Nehalbhai and Chitraben sustained serious injuries and died. 9.2 It is the case of the claimants that the accident occurred solely because of negligence on part of the driver of the luxury bus. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that, the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased Nehalbhai Baxi at Rs. 7,500/- p.m. and has not appreciated the evidence of income at Exh.57. It was also contended that, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any prospective income even though the deceased was just 31 years old on the date of accident. It was also contended that the Tribunal has awarded lesser amount under the head of loss of estate, which deserves to be enhanced, as prayed for. 11. The Tribunal has also erred in considering Rs. 3,000/- p.m. only as income of the deceased Chitraben Baxi. It was also contended that from oral deposition of the claimants as well as the witness examined by the claimant at Exh.64, it clearly borne out that, the deceased Chitraben was holding diploma in civil engineering and was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m from tuition at home. It was also contended that, when a person is doing a private tuition, the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that no evidence is adduced. Oral evidence led by the claimants clearly prove the income of the deceased Chitraben to be Rs. 10,000/- p.m. On the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeals be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced in both the appeals by modifying the award. 12. Per contra, Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed these appeals. It was contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and considered the income of the deceased Nehalbhai Baxi at Rs. 7,500/- p.m. which does not require any modification. He also contended that the Tribunal has granted just and appropriate compensation under the different heads, which also do not require any alteration or modification. He further contended that, considering the date of accident to be 20.11.2003, the appellants are not entitled to any benefit of prospective income. In view of the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the appeals being meritless, deserve to be dismissed. No other or further submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties. 13. He further contended that, considering the date of accident to be 20.11.2003, the appellants are not entitled to any benefit of prospective income. In view of the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the appeals being meritless, deserve to be dismissed. No other or further submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties. 13. As far as First Appeal No. 663/2009 is concerned, upon considering the submissions made, it appears that no evidence as regards the income of deceased Chitraben Baxi has been brought on record by the original claimants, who was daughter-in-law and having appreciated the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has granted just compensation as provided under Section 166 of the Act. The appellants- original claimants, who happened to be in-laws of deceased Chitraben and in absence of any evidence as observed hereinabove, no interference is called for. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation in M.A.C.P. No. 1425/2003 and therefore, First Appeal No. 663/2009 deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14. However, as far as First Appeal No. 664/2009 is concerned, upon re-appreciating the evidence on record, it appears that the Tribunal has rightly determined the income of the deceased Nehalbhai Baxi at Rs. 7,500/- p.m, however, the Tribunal has not granted any benefit of prospective income. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , original claimants would be entitled to the benefit of increase in income by way of 50 % of the prospective income of the deceased Nehalbhai. However, 50 % of the amount would be required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Rest of the judgment and award does not require any modification. 15. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants-original claimants of First Appeal No. 664/2009 would be entitled to get the compensation under the head of dependency benefit as under:- Rs. 7,500/- Income p.m. Rs. 3,750/- 50 % prospective income p.m. Rs. 11,250/- 50 % deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 5,625/- Rs. 5,625/- x 12 Months Rs. 15. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants-original claimants of First Appeal No. 664/2009 would be entitled to get the compensation under the head of dependency benefit as under:- Rs. 7,500/- Income p.m. Rs. 3,750/- 50 % prospective income p.m. Rs. 11,250/- 50 % deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 5,625/- Rs. 5,625/- x 12 Months Rs. 67,500/- x 15 Multiplier (as the age of the deceased was 31 years on the date of accident) Rs. 10,12,500/- Dependency benefit Rs. 30,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 10,47,500/- Total 16. As Rs. 9,35,000/- is already awarded by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 1431/2003, the appellants would be entitled to get additional amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, the respondent Insurance Company shall deposit said additional amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate 7.5 % from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization before the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from today. Considering the age of the appellants, they are permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation. 17. For the foregoing reasons, First Appeal No. 663/2009 is hereby dismissed. First Appeal No. 664/2009 is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Record and proceedings, if any, be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.