JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 248 of 2008. 2. The parties will be referred as their original position before the tribunal. 3. Short facts of the case appear to be as under: 3.1 The deceased Umeshkumar was a pedestrian who was hit by the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. GJ-6-B-8526 on 25.12.2007. 3.2 It is the case of claimants that due to such vehicular accident, deceased had suffered severe injuries and succumbed to such injuries. 3.3 The deceased was aged about 40 years, serving in Steelage Industries Limited and drawing salary of Rs. 6563/- per month + additional benefits. The deceased was survived by original claimants namely widow, two minor children and parents. 3.4 As the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck involved in the accident, so the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of truck. 3.5 After appreciating evidence on record, the tribunal has found driver of the truck solely negligent for causing accident and held that deceased died due to vehicular accident due to sole negligence of the driver of the truck. 3.6 Thereafter, the tribunal has decided the quantum of compensation and taking into account, salary of the deceased as Rs. 6563/- per months and considering 30% future rise of income applying 14 multiplier, awarded Rs. 9,55,584/- towards loss of dependency. 3.7 Further, tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards loss to the estate, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, tribunal has awarded in all Rs. 10,05,584/- as compensation to the claimants. 3.8 Claimants are not satisfied with the compensation and chosen to file present appeal on the ground of non consideration of other income of deceased received from his employer thereby awarding less compensation under other conventional heads. 4. Submissions of the appellant: 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Thus, tribunal has awarded in all Rs. 10,05,584/- as compensation to the claimants. 3.8 Claimants are not satisfied with the compensation and chosen to file present appeal on the ground of non consideration of other income of deceased received from his employer thereby awarding less compensation under other conventional heads. 4. Submissions of the appellant: 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hakim appearing for original claimants would submit that claimants have proved actual income of deceased by submitting oral and documentary evidence, but tribunal has not considered such evidence in its proper perspective, which resulted into granting inadequate compensation to the claimants. 4.2 He would submit that to prove actual income of the deceased at the time of accident, claimants have examined following witnesses: (1) Shwetakumari Umeshkumar Shrivastav at Exh.22 (2) Narendrakumar Balubhai Parmar at Exh.28 (3) Pranavbhai Vipinchnadra Pandya at Exh.39 (4) Anant Nareshbhai Panchal at Exh.42 4.3 He would further submit that deceased was serving in Steelage Industries Limited and his last few years’ salary income as well as salary slips from 01.07.2007 to 31.12.2007 were produced on record at Exh.33. The salary income chart showing his actual salary income with other benefits as on date of accident till superannuation was submitted at Ex.34. He has further stated that income tax return of the deceased as well as Form 16 were also submitted on record at Exh.59. He has drawn our attention that for the month of October 2007 and December 2007 deceased was paid a bonus and leave travel allowance respectively which was not at all considered by the tribunal while considering income of deceased. 4.4 According to learned advocate Mr. Hakim, if this Court would consider these two components which are part and parcel of earning of the deceased and claimants are beneficiary, then income which ought to have derived would be Rs. 7800/- per month instead of Rs. 6563/-. 4.5 Learned advocate Mr. Hakim would further submit that the deceased has not completed 40 years but he was in age group of 40 to 41 years then appropriate multiplier would be 15 and not 14. He would further submit that number of dependents are 5, then as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , personal deduction of the deceased would be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. He would further submit that number of dependents are 5, then as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , personal deduction of the deceased would be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. 4.6 At last, he has requested this Court to consider conventional amount as per the ratio laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Ors. 2018 (18) SCC 130 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. 2021 (11) SCC 780 . Thus, he has requested this Court to grant just and reasonable compensation by considering aforesaid facts and evidence on record. 5. Submission of the respondent: 5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Ninad Shah for learned advocate Ms. Aditi Raol for the insurance company would submit that the tribunal has not committed any error while computing compensation including ascertaining income of the deceased, which he was drawing from his employment. He would further submit that considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and law which was prevailing at the time of final adjudication of claim petition by the tribunal, compensation under the different heads were awarded, then no further enhancement under other heads may be considered by this Court. Thus, he has requested this Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. No other and further submissions are being made. 7. Point of determination: In the facts and circumstance of the case, the tribunal has committed an error while granting compensation or not? 8. Appreciation of submissions: 8.1 We have examined record of the claim petition and perused the evidence on record. It remains undisputed before the tribunal that deceased was in permanent employment and his monthly salary was Rs. 6563/- at the time of accident. 8.2 It has also come on record by oral and documentary evidence that deceased was paid bonus and leave travel allowance which is confirmed from oral evidence of one Narendrakumar Balubhai Parmar at Exh.28, who was HR Manager of Gunega India Limited earlier known as Steelage Industries Limited. 6563/- at the time of accident. 8.2 It has also come on record by oral and documentary evidence that deceased was paid bonus and leave travel allowance which is confirmed from oral evidence of one Narendrakumar Balubhai Parmar at Exh.28, who was HR Manager of Gunega India Limited earlier known as Steelage Industries Limited. Wherein he has also stated that every year there was rise of 8.4% in the salary of the employees as per the policy of the company. Even list produced at Ex.34 would also clearly suggest that at time of accident, deceased was used to earn Rs. 7800/- p.m. 8.3 If we consider. past few months’ salary slips which are produced at Exh.33, then it has come on record and remained undisputed before the tribunal that deceased had received bonus of Rs. 7201/- and leave travel allowance of Rs. 2625/-. 8.4 If we take into account two components while assessing the income of deceased then monthly income would come to Rs. 7800/- per month which is also reflected at list Ex.34. Thus, we are accepting the submission of learned advocate Mr. Hakim that tribunal has not considered actual income derived by the deceased from his employment. 8.5 It is also true that deceased had not completed 41 years but considering the date of birth of the deceased as 01.01.1967 and date of accident 25.12.2007 then he has completed 40 years but he was less than 41 years. In this set of factual circumstances of the case, it is apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Shashikala & Ors. vs. Gangalakshmamma & Anr. 2015 (9) SCC 150 wherein it has been so observed and held as under: “[17] Insofar as appropriate multiplier, the date of birth of the deceased as per driving licence was 16.6.1961. On the date of accident i.e. 14.12.2006, the deceased was aged 45 years, 5 months and 28 days and the tribunal has taken the age as 46 years. Since the deceased has completed only 45 years, the High Court has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and adopted multiplier 14 which is the appropriate multiplier and the same is maintained.......” So, in view of above decision and as deceased had not completed 41 years at the time of accident, an appropriate multiplier would be 15 and not 14. 8.6 The number of dependents are 5 upon deceased then as per ratio laid-down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Supra) personal expenses would be deducted 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. 8.7 Lastly as per the recent pronouncement of Honourable Supreme Court including Pranay Shetty (supra), Nanu Ram (supra) & Satinder Kaur (supra), claimants would entitled to consortium, then widow, two minor children and father of the deceased would be entitled to Rs. 48,400/- each toward loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium respectively. 8.8 Likewise, Rs. 18,500/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively is required to be granted to the claimants. Conclusion: 8.9 Thus, in view of above stated discussion and finding, claimants are entitled to the following compensation as under: Monthly income Rs. 7,800/- 30% prospective rise Rs. 2,340/- Total income Rs. 10,140/- 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 2,535/- Actual monthly loss of dependency Rs. 7,605/- Annual loss of dependency Rs. 91,260/- Considering the age of deceased as 40 years and 11 months - Multiplier 15 Loss of dependency Rs. 13,68,900/- Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,93,600/- Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/- Total compensation Rs. 15,98,800/- Deducting compensation already awarded by the tribunal Rs. 10,05,584/- Additional compensation with 7.5% interest from date of filing claim petition till realization Rs. 5,93,216/- 9. The claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 5,93,216/- which carry 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit such amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 9.1 Once the compensation amount is deposited by the insurance company, the tribunal shall disburse entire additional compensation amount in favour of the claimants in ratio of 50:15:15:20 in favour of widow: son : daughter : father respectively. 9.2 The First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith.