JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant-The New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 10/09/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 622 of 2007, by which, the learned Tribunal has held and directed the original opponent no. 3 - Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the original claimants. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the unfortunate incident took place on 18/07/2007 at about 2.45 p.m. in noon hours on the road proceeding towards Shyamdhaam, Yogi-Chokdi, Opp. Panchvati society in Surat City. That on the day of incident, the deceased-Laljibhai Kanjibhai Gidhani was going on his Hero-Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-5-DF-4235 by running it as moderate speed following the traffic rules. When he approached the place of accident, the respondent No. 1 came from opposite side by driving his Tata Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-5-U-3558 in rash and negligent manner, in full speed, violating the traffic rules, in wrong side and dashed it with the Motorcycle of the deceased. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the said accidental injuries. 3. Heard Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr.Hiren M. Modi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-original claimants. 4. Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the respondents-original claimants have neither produced any documentary evidence with regard to the actual income of the deceased nor they have produced anything on record to show that the deceased was also having income out of the tuition classes run by him. Mr.Nanavati submitted that the respondents-original claimants have also not examined the persons who had issued the certificates in favour of the deceased, and therefore, the respondents-original claimants have failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence on record to prove the steady income of the deceased. He further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by awarding the amount of compensation on higher side and on all other grounds raised in the memo of appeal, the present appeal has been filed. 5. He further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by awarding the amount of compensation on higher side and on all other grounds raised in the memo of appeal, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Per contra, Mr.Hiren M. Modi the learned counsel appearing for the original claimants emphasized that the claimants have produced the certificate of income issued by the Principal of the School wherein the deceased was serving as a Teacher. He submitted that atleast since the deceased was running the tuition classes, his income is required to be presumed from the tuition classes, however, he candidly submitted that the claimants have not examined the persons who have issued the income certificates. He further submitted that the deceased was serving as a teacher in a private school and he was a scholar in Science stream. He submitted that the deceased was a subject teacher and was also giving tuition to the students. 6. We Have considered the averments made in the appeal, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the record and proceedings. It is true that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years only i.e. below 40 years and therefore, 50% rise in the future prospective income is to be considered. Moreover, the legal heirs of the deceased are six in number and therefore, instead of 1/3, deduction of 1/4 is required to be adopted. Considering the fact that the deceased was serving as a teacher in a private school and he was a scholar in Science stream and was giving tuition to students also, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Moreover, the claimants are also entitled to consortium as per the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Others, AIR 2020 SC 3076 and in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Somwati and Others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 . Considering all these aspects and considering the decisions of the Apex Court as above, the respondents-original claimants are entitled to compensation under different heads as under: Particulars Amount Future loss of income Rs. 8,000/- x 12 = Rs. 96,000/- + Rs. 48,000/- (50% rise) = Rs. 1,44,000/- - Rs. 36,000/- (¼) = Rs. 1,08,000/- x 17 multiplier Rs. 18,36,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Spouse consortium Rs. 40,000/- Parental consortium Rs. 40,000/- Filial consortium Rs. 80,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total compensation Rs. 20,26,000/- Compensation awarded (-) Rs. 23,61,000/- Amount to be refunded Rs. 3,35,000/- 7. As per the above calculation, the respondents-original claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.20,26,000/- whereas, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.23,61,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to receive refund of Rs.3,35,000/-. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we pass the following order: (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited is entitled to refund of Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Thirty Five Thousand Only) with proportionate costs and interest. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court, if any, at the time of filing of the appeal, is to be remitted back to concerned Tribunal and the same shall be refunded by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company through RTGS/NEFT, after verifying the bank details. (iii) The amount which is deposited in the FDR or lying in the Nazir Department is to be disbursed in favour of the original claimants after verifying their bank details anf after following due process of law through RTGS/NEFT. (iv) After deducting the amount of Rs.3,35,000/- with proportionate costs and interest, the remaining amount of the award which is deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company is to be disbursed in favour of the original claimants after verifying their bank details through RTGS/NEFT. 9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (iv) After deducting the amount of Rs.3,35,000/- with proportionate costs and interest, the remaining amount of the award which is deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company is to be disbursed in favour of the original claimants after verifying their bank details through RTGS/NEFT. 9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.