JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. This first appeal under Section 173 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the instance of the appellants (original claimants) legal heirs of deceased Chandrakantbhai Ramjibhai Patel and is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) Vadodara, below Ex.41 dated 29.4.2017 in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.949 of 2014. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under :- 2.1 The deceased Chandrakantbhai on 30.5.2014 was walking towards Nizampura from the Fatehganj circle so as to reach near a bus-stand where the buses of GSFC are usually parked. At that time around 5:40 p.m. in the evening the original opponent No.1 came driving his car bearing registration No.GJ-06-HL-0431 at high speed from the Fatehganj circle and dashed with the deceased. The deceased fell down on the road and suffered multiple injuries all over the body. He was immediately rushed to the SSG Hospital by 108 Ambulance. He succumbed to the injuries on 3.6.2014. The FIR came to be registered against the opponent No.1 at the Fatehganj Police Station vide the CR No.I-96 of 2014. 3. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.1,56,54,337/- at the rate of 18% per annum with proportionate cost. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.32,97,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the realization alongwith cost jointly and severally from the opponents. 4. Mr. J.H. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (original claimants) submitted that the deceased was working with the GSFC at Vadodara as a Senior Supervisor (Sales) and was earning Rs.60,260/- p.m. The Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.60,260/-. He mainly submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the following :- (a) The monthly income of the deceased at Rs.38,660/- only. It was submitted that the salary-slips of the deceased were duly produced at Ex.31, 32 and 33. (b) He submitted that the Tribunal erred in not considering the prospective income of the deceased as per the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It was submitted that the salary-slips of the deceased were duly produced at Ex.31, 32 and 33. (b) He submitted that the Tribunal erred in not considering the prospective income of the deceased as per the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It was submitted that undisputedly as per the findings of the Tribunal also the deceased was 53 years of old at the time of accident and had permanent job in GSFC, Vadodara and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have added 15% as prospective income to the actual income. (c) He submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting 10% towards the income-tax. 5. Per contra, Rushang D. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (Insurance Company) fairly accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding non-inclusion of prospective income at the rate of 15% which was required to be considered by the Tribunal as per the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors., (Supra). He further submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal was otherwise just and proper and was not required to be interfered with. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and we have gone through the judgment and award dated 29.4.2017 passed by the Tribunal in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.949 of 2014. The Tribunal made the following observations in paragraph-16 :- “(16) As stated in the petition, at the time of accident, deceased Chandrakantbhai Ramjibhai Patel was working in GSFC at Halol Department, as Senior Supervisor (Sales). The applicants have examined Dy. Manager (Account) of GSFC at Ex-29 to establish the income of deceased-Chandrakantbhai Patel. According to him, deceased -Chandrakantbhai Patel was permanent employee of GSFC at the time of accident and death resulted from it. DeceasedChandrakantbhai was working as a Senior Supervisor (Sales) in GSFC at Halol Department. This witness has produced Ex-31 to Ex-35, salary slip of deceased -Chandrakantbhai for May 2014, April 2014, June 2014 and copy of Form No. 16 for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. His salary slip for the month of May 2014 shows net earning, after all necessary deduction, at Rs.43,420/- p.m., but, it includes food 7 grain advance pay of Rs.8,000/-. Ld. Advocate Mr. His salary slip for the month of May 2014 shows net earning, after all necessary deduction, at Rs.43,420/- p.m., but, it includes food 7 grain advance pay of Rs.8,000/-. Ld. Advocate Mr. P.M. Patel appearing for the applicants fairly submits that this food grain advance pay is given only ones in a year and therefore, it can not be counted in the net salary. Therefore, he relied upon Ex-32, pay slip of April 2014 which evince net salary of deceased at Rs.38,660/-, which is taken as net salary at the time of his death, upon which applicants were dependent. Identity Card of deceased-Chandrakantbhai issued by GSFC is produced at Ex-23, which shows birth-date of deceased as 22.10.1961. The day of accident is 30.5.2014. So, on the day of death, deceased was 53 years old. Having no other evidence in regards to rise in income in future and considering the age of the deceased, I do not add future prospects in the present income of the deceased as to calculate dependency loss. The issue whether to add future prospect after the age of 50 or not is referred to larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per order passed in SLP (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014, in case of National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Ors. In that situation, I do not add certain percentage as future prospects. In case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC; (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said for net income less Income-tax. In present case, deceased's monthly pay taken into consideration is Rs.38,660/-. Therefore, yearly income arrived would be Rs.4,64,000/- (rounded of Rs.4,63,920/-). Out of which, 10% is deducted towards Income-tax, that will bring down figure of the yearly income to Rs.4,17,600/-. Deceased survived by three dependents and therefore, I deduct one-third as his personal and pocket expenses. Therefore, Rs.1,39,200/- would be deducted as personal and pocket expenses from the yearly income of the deceased. So, it bring down the dependency loss to the figure of Rs.2,78,400/-. The deceased was falling in age bracket of 51 to 55, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, I apply multiplier of 11, which gives Rs.30,62,400/- as compensation for future economic loss.” Analysis :- 7. So, it bring down the dependency loss to the figure of Rs.2,78,400/-. The deceased was falling in age bracket of 51 to 55, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, I apply multiplier of 11, which gives Rs.30,62,400/- as compensation for future economic loss.” Analysis :- 7. Indisputably the deceased Chandrakantbhai was working with the GSFC at Vadodara as a Senior Supervisor (Sales) (permanent employee) at the time of accident. The Manager (Account) of GSFC was examined to establish the income of the deceased Chandrakantbhai. The salary slips of April, May and June, 2014 of deceased Chandrakantbhai were produced by the said witness. The Tribunal relied on Ex.32 which is a pay-slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2014 computing the salary of the deceased at Rs.38,660/- which was the net salary of the deceased. 8. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors., (Supra) in paragraphs 59.3 and 59.4 the actual salary should be read as “actual salary minus tax” which read thus :- “59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” The above referred ratio is followed in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender and Ors., reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 , para-19 reads thus :- “19. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” The above referred ratio is followed in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Birender and Ors., reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 , para-19 reads thus :- “19. Reverting to the determination of compensation amount, it is noticed that the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation amount on the basis of net-salary drawn by the deceased for the relevant period as Rs.16,918/- per month, while taking note of the fact that her gross-salary was Rs.23,123/- per month (presumably below taxable income). Concededly, any deduction from the gross salary other than tax amount cannot be reckoned. In that, the actual salary less tax amount ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for determining the compensation amount, in light of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 59.3 of Pranay Sethi (supra).” In view of the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments the actual salary of the deceased is required to be taken into consideration deducting the tax. In view of the above the salary of the deceased is required to be calculated at Rs.55,256/- which is the actual salary of the deceased for the month of April 2014 as per Ex.32. The TDS Form-16 produced at Ex.30 is the annual TDS for the Assessment Year 2014-15 for the period from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014 at Rs.78,492/-, therefore; Rs.55,259/- (Actual Salary) x 12 (months) = Rs.6,63,108/- Minus tax of Rs.78,492/- Rs.5,84,616/- Thus, in our view as per the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi and Ors., (Supra) as per para (59.3) 15% towards prospective income is required to be added in the income of the deceased. 9. In view of above said facts & circumstances of case and following ratio of decisions in a case of Pranay Sethi and Ors., (Supra), Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., (Supra) and Birender and Ors., (Supra), the yearly income of the deceased is to be considered at Rs.5,84,616/-, adding 15% prospective income of Rs.87,692, amount comes to Rs.6,72,308/-. 10. At this stage, we would like to clarify that we are not interfering with the rest of the award passed by the Tribunal under the other heads. 10.1 Deducting one third towards the personal expenses of Rs.2,24,103 the amount comes to Rs.4,48,205. Applying the multiplier of 11 as per decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. 10. At this stage, we would like to clarify that we are not interfering with the rest of the award passed by the Tribunal under the other heads. 10.1 Deducting one third towards the personal expenses of Rs.2,24,103 the amount comes to Rs.4,48,205. Applying the multiplier of 11 as per decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the amount comes to Rs.49,30,255/-. Adding the amount towards love and affection, loss of consortium and funeral of Rs.2,10,000/- total compensation payable to the applicant comes to Rs.51,40,255/-. 11. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.32,97,400/-. The present appellants are therefore entitled to additional compensation of Rs.18,42,855/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of application filed before the Tribunal. The respondent (Insurance Company) is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) Vadodara, below Ex.41 dated 29.4.2017 in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.949 of 2014 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to cost. 13. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.