JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 22.12.2016 passed by the MAC Tribunal (Aux.) Ahmedabad (Rural) in MAC Petition No. 516 of 2006, the appellant-Insurance Co. has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The following facts emerge from the record of the Appeal: 2.1. That the accident took place on 13.2.2006 near Chotila-Sayala crossing of Limbdi-Ahmedabad Highway. It is the case of the respondents-claimants that the deceased Dr. R.J.S. Yadav along with one Mr. R.D. Patel were traveling in Maruti Car from Rajkot to Ahmedabad and when the car reached at the place of occurrence at about 4.00 a.m., the accident occurred. It is the case of the claimants that the car was parked properly and the deceased got down from the car to answer the nature's call and while he was returning, the truck bearing registration No. GJ-3-W-9390 coming from Sayala being driven in rash and negligent manner, ran over the deceased. The record indicates that the deceased sustained serious injuries and was admitted to Limbdi General Hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police station at Exh. 41 and the present claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act by the claimants and claimed compensation of Rs. 24 lakhs. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as Principal in the Gujarat Homeopathy Medical College, Savli, Vadodara and had a monthly salary of Rs. 36,805/- per month as per the 6th Pay Commission. The claimants examined the wife of the deceased at Exh. 24 and also examined a witness-Dr. R.D. Patel, who was traveling with the deceased and also relied upon documentary evidence as under: Particulars Exh. Certified copy of income certificate of deceased 35 Certified copy of salary slip of deceased for the month of December, 2005 36 Certified copy of salary slip of deceased for the month of January, 2006 37 Certified copy of salary certificate of deceased for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 38 2.2. The Tribunal, after considering the deposition of the claimants at Exh. 24, FIR at Exh. 41, Panchnama of place of occurrence at Exh. 42, PM Report at Exh. The Tribunal, after considering the deposition of the claimants at Exh. 24, FIR at Exh. 41, Panchnama of place of occurrence at Exh. 42, PM Report at Exh. 44, came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent for the accident and also took note of the fact that the driver, though available, was not examined by the Insurance Co. The Tribunal considered the deposition of the claimants at Exh. 24 and while arriving at just compensation, considered the income-tax returns and the pay slip at Exh. 33 and considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 46,180/- per month. The Tribunal, however, did not consider any prospective income, but after deducting 1/4th, applied multiplier of 9 and awarded a sum of Rs. 37,42,200/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Over and above the same, the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 38,27,200/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of fling of the claim petition till its realization. 2.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Co. 3. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Co. and Mr. Mahendra U. Vora, learned counsel for the original claimants. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. However, as the liability is not denied, presence of other respondents is not necessary for deciding the present Appeal. 4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Co., contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 46,200/-. According to Mr. Nanavati, the accident occurred on 13.2.2006. Referring to the salary slip of the deceased for the month of December, 2005 at Exh. 26, it was contended by Mr. Nanavati that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 36,804/-. Mr. Nanavati further referring to the said pay slip, contended that the Tribunal has also not deducted the other allowance like transport allowances and professional tax as well as income-tax which should be deducted to arrive at a net income of the deceased. Mr. Nanavati that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 36,804/-. Mr. Nanavati further referring to the said pay slip, contended that the Tribunal has also not deducted the other allowance like transport allowances and professional tax as well as income-tax which should be deducted to arrive at a net income of the deceased. Mr. Nanavati also contended that the mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition, leaving behind only 3 dependents and hence, deduction should be to the extent of 1/3rd and not 1/4th as calculated by the Tribunal. Relying upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , it was contended by Mr. Nanavati that the additional compensation by way of compensation under different conventional as including funeral expenses would be Rs. 70,000/- only, whereas the Tribunal has granted an excess amount. On the aforesaid ground, it was contended by Mr. Nanavati that the impugned judgment and award is erroneous and the same deserves to be modified by partly allowing the Appeal as prayed for. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mahendra U. Vora, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants, has supported the impugned award. Mr. Vora contended that the Tribunal has committed no error in considering the income of the deceased per month as Rs. 46,200/- as the deceased was working as Principal in the Gujarat Homeopathy Medical College and had derived the benefit of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Mr. Vora further contended that the mother was alive when the accident took place and in fact, she was applicant No. 1 in the claim petition. Hence, on the date of the accident and even on the date of fling of the claim petition, the deceased had 4 dependents and hence, deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4th as has rightly been calculated by the Tribunal and no interference is called for. Mr. Vora further submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation under the different heads and no case for interference is made out and the Appeal being merit less, deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Vora, therefore, submitted that the Appeal being misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 6. Mr. Vora, therefore, submitted that the Appeal being misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 6. We have perused the original record and proceedings received from the Tribunal. The questions which arise for consideration in this Appeal are whether the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 46,200/- per month or not and whether the deduction towards personal expenses is to the extent of 1/4th is properly made by the Tribunal or not. 7. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, it would be apt to refer to the deposition of Manikaben Ramjanm Yadav, the wife of the deceased at Exh. 24. It clearly appears from the deposition and even from the cross-examination that the deceased was 58 years old on the date of the accident and that the deceased did receive the benefit of 6th Pay Commission from 1.1.2006. Even considering the Form-16 at Exh. 38, the same is reflecting. It is a matter of fact that 6th Pay Commission was implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006, whereas the deceased met with an accident and expired on 13.2.2006 and, therefore, the deceased must have received the salary for the month of January, 2006 as per 6th Pay Commission and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly determined the income of the deceased based upon the salary as per 6th Pay Commission i.e. Rs. 46,200/- and hence, the Tribunal has committed no error in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 46,200/-. However, upon perusal of the pay slip at Exh. 36 which reflects the salary of the deceased for the month of December, 2005 and also considering the oral deposition of the witness-Mr. R.D. Patel at Exh. 34, an amount of Rs. 1000/- was deducted towards income-tax and Rs. 4000/- was given to the deceased as transport allowance and Rs. 80/- came to be deducted as professional tax. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income would mean income (-) tax. Therefore, in facts of this case, the income of the deceased would be Rs. 44,720/- (Rs. 46,200/- (-) Rs. 1000/- (-) Rs. 400/- (-) Rs. 80/- ). 80/- came to be deducted as professional tax. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income would mean income (-) tax. Therefore, in facts of this case, the income of the deceased would be Rs. 44,720/- (Rs. 46,200/- (-) Rs. 1000/- (-) Rs. 400/- (-) Rs. 80/- ). As the deceased was 57 years old on the date of the accident and was on a permanent job, the respondents-claimants would be entitled to prospective income by way of increase in income to the tune of 15% and, therefore, the gross income of the deceased including prospective income would come to Rs. 51,406/-. We find from the Records and Proceedings that the original claim petition was filed by the 4 dependents and Mrs. Sumitraben Kaiyubsing Yadav, the mother of the deceased, was alive and was aged 70 years on the date of the fling of the claim petition. Considering the position as it existed on the date of accident as well as on the date of fling of the claim petition, the deceased had 4 dependents and, therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses has to be 1/4th and not 1/3rd, as canvassed by Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. and hence, Rs. 17,135/- is required to be deducted i.e. Rs. 51,406/- (-) Rs. 17,135/-, the net monthly income, therefore, would come to Rs. 34,271/- and yearly, the income would come to Rs. 4,11,252/-. The appropriate multiplier would be 9 considering the age of the deceased to be 57 years and hence, the respondents-claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head of future loss of income at Rs. 37,01,268/- (Rs. 4,11,252/- x 9). In addition to this, the respondents-claimants would also be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under the different conventional heads and thus, the respondents-claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 37,71,268/-. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 38,27,200/-, the appellant-Insurance Co. would be entitled to refund of Rs. 55,932/- with proportionate interest and cost. 8. In view of above, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The Tribunal shall refund the amount of Rs. 55,932/- with proportionate interest and cost to the appellant-Insurance Co. forthwith. The Appeal is, thus, partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 55,932/- with proportionate interest and cost. 8. In view of above, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The Tribunal shall refund the amount of Rs. 55,932/- with proportionate interest and cost to the appellant-Insurance Co. forthwith. The Appeal is, thus, partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The original Records and Proceedings be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. The Tribunal shall act as per the modified award. 9. As the main Appeal is disposed of by order of even date, connected Civil Applications would not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.