JUDGMENT : PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 1. The instant appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur. 2. The New India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) has filed this miscellaneous appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Japiur, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.53,94,565/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of filing the claim petition against the appellant-insurer and in favour of claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The appellant questions the occurrence of the accident so also the application of the statutory deduction and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 4. The claimants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as “claimants”) have preferred the appeal for enhancement against the impugned award on the grounds of fewer interest rates, wrong application of the deduction towards dependency, the meagre amount in the heads of love and affection and non-granting of the award under the head of loss of estate. 5. Vide impugned award the Tribunal awarded the claim of Rs.53,94,565/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of filing the claim petition, the break up of the same under different heads is under: Loss of Income Rs. 53,24,565/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 53,94,565/- 6. Heard learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned judgment. Factual aspect regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and its rash & negligent driving by respondent No. 4: 7. As far as the factual aspects regarding involvement of the offending Bus, the Driver's rash and negligent driving and resulting in the death of deceased Navratan are concerned, AW-1 Santosh, wife of the deceased, was examined before the Tribunal. In her deposition, she produced the relevant documents Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-10. 8. The exhibited documents show that police after a thorough investigation has submitted the charge sheet under Sections 279, 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the erring Driver of the offending vehicle. 9. Further, the eyewitness AW-2 Santosh Tiwari has categorically deposed that the driver of the erring vehicle drove the Bus at high speed resulting in its turtling at the curve. 9. Further, the eyewitness AW-2 Santosh Tiwari has categorically deposed that the driver of the erring vehicle drove the Bus at high speed resulting in its turtling at the curve. He further deposed that due to the capsizing of the vehicle, he and other passengers also sustained injuries and one passenger died. In his cross-examination, he did not depose anything contradictory, which makes him unreliable. Thus, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver. 10. Non-examination of the First Informant was not essential for proving the factum of the accident. This fact stands proved by AW-2 Santosh. Consequently, on this account, the impugned award cannot be questioned. On the question of the application of deduction of income tax on assessed annual income, multiplier and the deduction towards personal and living expenses: 11. Whether the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier of 11 and the deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased so also the income slab for deducting the tax? 12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted Rs.70,000/- as the income tax on the total assessed amount, whereas, against the calculated amount of Rs.7,96,077/- the Tribunal ought to have deducted 20% of the amount as income tax. 13. He also contended that the Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier of 11. He further asserted that the mother of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim and respondent No. 3, nephew of the deceased, cannot be termed as dependent. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the standard deduction as 1/3rd instead of 1/2. 14. Whereas, counsel for the claimants argued that Tribunal has wrongly applied the deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th towards it. He further asserted that one of the claimants died during the claim, hence towards the expenses 1/4th amount ought to have been deducted by the Tribunal. 15. 14. Whereas, counsel for the claimants argued that Tribunal has wrongly applied the deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th towards it. He further asserted that one of the claimants died during the claim, hence towards the expenses 1/4th amount ought to have been deducted by the Tribunal. 15. In the celebrated judgment of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 16. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 55 and applied the multiplier of 11. I don't find any illegality in applying the multiplier of 11 by the Tribunal while computing the loss of income due to death of the deceased. The Tribunal followed the above judgment while applying the multiplier. The appellant is unable to satisfy this Court on how the multiplier of 11 is incorrect for the deceased falling in the age group of 51 to 55. 17. Admittedly, on the assessed income of Rs.7,96,077/- the Tribunal deducted Rs.70,000/- as income tax. During the relevant assessment year 2013-2014 the person, falling in the income bracket of 5 to 10 lacs, was supposed to fall in the category of 20%. For the relevant period up to an income of 2 lacs, the tax existed was Zero and for the rest of the amount, ranging from 2 lacs to 5 lacs, 10% of the income was taxable and afterwards, a slab of 20% was in existence. 18. Indisputably, the Tribunal did not deduct the income tax while applying the prevalent rate of 20%. 18. Indisputably, the Tribunal did not deduct the income tax while applying the prevalent rate of 20%. The taxable income in the amount of Rs.7,96,077/- after deducting the standard deduction of 2 lacs, comes to Rs.96,000/- approximately. Thus the deduction of the income tax by the Tribunal is not proper. 19. This Court is of the view that after deducting the amount of Rs.96,000/- as income tax the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,00,077/- per annum. 20. The Tribunal applied 1/3rd of the standard deduction before computing the income of the deceased in the head of loss of income. The Tribunal categorically held that respondent No. 3 nephew of the deceased does not fall within the ambit of the dependent. 21. Admittedly respondent Nos.1 and 2 were dependent on the deceased and respondent No. 2, mother of the deceased, died during the claim. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the expenses towards personal and living expenses. 22. In Sarla Verma's case (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that: “Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. In light of the above judgment, the Tribunal rightly applied the deduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses. The claim of the appellant as well as of the claimants for applying 1/2 and 1/4th of the deduction towards personal and living expenses are misinterpreted and against the settled tenets of the law. 24. As a result of the foregoing conclusion, the compensation towards the loss of earnings comes as under: 1/3rd of Rs. 7,00,077/- Rs. 2,33,359/- After deducting the 1/3rd amount from Rs. 7,00,077 - 2,33,359 Rs. 4,66,718/- Loss of Income Rs. 4,66,718 x 11 Rs. 51,33,898/- On the question of meagre compensation under the other heads: 25. The Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of future prospects. 26. 7,00,077/- Rs. 2,33,359/- After deducting the 1/3rd amount from Rs. 7,00,077 - 2,33,359 Rs. 4,66,718/- Loss of Income Rs. 4,66,718 x 11 Rs. 51,33,898/- On the question of meagre compensation under the other heads: 25. The Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of future prospects. 26. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014, decided on 31.10.2017 Hon’ble Apex Court held that the age of the deceased is the basis for applying a suitable multiplier and that the compensation is to be determined keeping in view the future prospects. The future prospects were held to 15% in respect of a deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years. In that head the claimants are entitled to get the following compensation: 15% of Rs.51,33,898 = Rs.7,70,085/- 27. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the other heads following the principle enunciated in the celebrated case of Pranay Sethi (supra). On the question of interest: 28. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at a rate varying between 7 to 7.50% on fixed deposits for more than one year up to three years. The rate of interest depends upon the rate of inflation and the supply and demand of credit. As per the RBI Guidelines presently, no bank is offering more than 7.5% as interest on the FDR. Therefore, in my view, the Tribunal has awarded a just interest over the compensation amount. Hence, this Court does not find any inadequacy in the interest component awarded to the claimants. 29. Based upon the abovementioned facts and analysis, this Court believes that the just compensation to be awarded to the claimants under the different heads ought to be as under: Loss of income Rs. 51,33,898/- Future Prospects @ 15% Rs. 7,70,085/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 59,73,983/- 30. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.59,73,983/- instead of Rs.53,94,565/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,79,418/- the claimants would be entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application as per the terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 31. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.59,73,983/- instead of Rs.53,94,565/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. On the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5,79,418/- the claimants would be entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application as per the terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 31. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation after computing the amount already deposited (in terms of the impugned award dated 12.01.2021) alongwith the above interest in the saving bank account of the claimants through learned Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of the order. 32. Corollary to the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned judgment and award on the point of wrong deduction under the income tax is partly allowed. However, the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is also allowed.