JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company- original opponent No.2-insurer of the Eicher Truck No. MH-14-TCF-788 against the judgment and award dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.28 of 2012. 2. By the impugned judgment and award, the original opponent Nos.1 and 2 being the insurance company and vehicle owner were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation award of Rs.86,27,068/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of application, whereas claim against opponent Nos.3 to 6 stood dismissed. 3. Appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 28.10.2020 and this Court by an order dated 28.10.2020 was pleased to allow the Civil Application making necessary order of deposit and disbursement while staying the implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and award. By an order dated 23.08.2022, record and proceedings were called for. 4. The Court observers that the Cross Objection No.64 of 2024 came to be filed by the claimants with delay and the delay came to be condoned by an order dated 12.03.2024 and by an order dated 26.03.2024, this Court had admitted the Cross Objection. The claimants are the widow, two daughters, son and mother of the deceased, who was serving as a Deputy Manager in Indian Oil Corporation at Ahmedabad. The accident occurred on 28.11.2011, when the deceased was occupying an Esteem Car driven by his colleague and had gone for official work to ONGC office at Sayla and were returning and while returning from Sayla to Muli in District Surendrangar, the accident occurred, where the erring Eicher Truck bearing No. MH-14-TCF-788 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner collided with the Esteem Car dragging the car and dashing with another stationary vehicle being a Dumper truck bearing No.GJ-13-W-1553. In connection with this accident, an FIR came to be registered as deceased was occupying the car sustained serious and fetal injuries dying on the spot. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and award is granting excessive compensation and the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income at Rs.56,260/- per month. In connection with this accident, an FIR came to be registered as deceased was occupying the car sustained serious and fetal injuries dying on the spot. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and award is granting excessive compensation and the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income at Rs.56,260/- per month. It is submitted that an error is committed in considering the prospective income as considering the date of birth of the deceased of the year 1961, the deceased was aged more than 50 years and therefore, the prospective income as applicable as per the reported judgment in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 has to be considered at 15% and not 30%. 6. Learned advocate has therefore, submitted that if the income and prospective income has to be considered as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , then the excess to the tune of Rs.21,51,768/- as awarded towards compensation. 7. The Court has then taken into consideration the Cross Objection filed by the claimants, wherein the case of the claimants is that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the monthly income of the deceased and has not appreciated the salary slip appropriately. According to submission, the monthly income of the deceased was to the tune of Rs.1,02,032/- after the necessary deductions of Income Tax and Professional Tax still only Rs.56,260/- is considered as income per month. 8. Learned advocate has supported the decision of the Tribunal insofar as the application of the prospective income at 30% and also applying multiplier of 13. 9. The Court having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents placed on record, the only issue that comes for consideration as to whether the Tribunal has awarded appropriate compensation. The grant of compensation by the Tribunal is tabular form as under:- S. No. Compensation As per Impugned Award (Rs.) 1. Dependency Loss Income 56,260/- Prospective Income (30%) 16,878/- Total 73,138/- Deduction of Towards Personal Expenses ¼ 18,285/- Total 54,853/- 12 months (54,853x12) 6,58,236/- Multiplier 13 85,57,068/- 2. Loss of Consortium Spouse 40,000/- Filial Parental 3. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Grand Total 86,27,068/- 10. Dependency Loss Income 56,260/- Prospective Income (30%) 16,878/- Total 73,138/- Deduction of Towards Personal Expenses ¼ 18,285/- Total 54,853/- 12 months (54,853x12) 6,58,236/- Multiplier 13 85,57,068/- 2. Loss of Consortium Spouse 40,000/- Filial Parental 3. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Grand Total 86,27,068/- 10. The conflict with regard to the assessment of income based on the salary slip, where the claimants have submitted that the income of the deceased per month is Rs.1,18,121.17/- and after the deductions under various heads, it is required to be treated at Rs.80,015/-. The Court may refer to the evidence of one Piyushbhai Parshottambhai Patel at Exh.91, who has produced on record the salary slip at Exh.93 and the salary slip of November 2011 was taken into consideration and in Para-14 of the Judgment, the Court has recorded that the total income under various heads of salary comes to Rs.1,18,121.17/- and in the same salary slip, total deductions are shown as Rs.50,561.17/- thereby take home salary was coming to Rs.67,560/-. The Tribunal has for the purpose of loss of dependency has calculated the total income as under:- November 2011 Earnings Amount Deductions Amount Basic Pay 44,980.00 Professional Tax Deducted 200.00 Variable D.A. 23,389.60 Income Tax- Current Month 15,889.00 House Rent Allowance 8,996.00 Society Loan 5016.00 Total Earnings 77,365.00 Total Deductions 21,105.00 Total Income 56,260.00 10.1 Accordingly, total income of Rs.56,260/- is considered by the Tribunal. The Court may therefore, refer to Exh.93, salary slip, wherein the total earning was shown as Rs.1,18,121,.17/- however, such earning also consist of heads being SCO payment arrears and Rotating duty compensation arrears being Rs.20,510.88/- and Rs.1500/- respectively, which in the opinion of the Court being arrears could not have been treated as part of total earning and therefore, are required to be deducted and therefore, the amount would come to Rs.96,110 / -. Therefore, the total earning is at Rs.96,110/-. 11. Though in the salary slip, various deductions have been shown under various heads, however, for the purpose of calculating income per month, the only deductions which are applicable are under the head of Income Tax being Rs.15,889/- and Professional Tax being Rs.200/- and therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 80,015 /-. 12. 11. Though in the salary slip, various deductions have been shown under various heads, however, for the purpose of calculating income per month, the only deductions which are applicable are under the head of Income Tax being Rs.15,889/- and Professional Tax being Rs.200/- and therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs. 80,015 /-. 12. It is on record that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 50 years 5 months and 28 days and therefore, applying the principle of Pranay Sethi (supra) ), the prospective will have be assessed at 15% of the salary, which is Rs.12,002/- and therefore, the total monthly income for the purpose of loss of dependency would be Rs.92,017/-. 13. In the opinion of the Court, in view of the aforesaid assessment of the monthly income of the deceased, the award is required to be modified. 14. Insofar as application of multiplier, the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13, whereas in the opinion of the Court, in the facts of the case, multiplier which is required to be applied is that of 11. 15. Under the head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- only the widow of the deceased and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is a matter of record that the deceased was survived by widow, three children and widowed mother, who were all the claimants before the Tribunal and therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) , the wife is entitled to Rs.48,400/- towards loss of consortium, the children at Rs.1,45,200/- and widowed mother at Rs.48,400/-. The aforesaid enhancement under the head of loss of consortium is also required to be made to bring the compensation in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court. 16. Under the loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- is calculated each however, considering the date of the accident and the claim allowed by the Tribunal, in the opinion of the Court, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards the loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards the funeral expenses being raised, which the claimants are entitled to with the passage of time. 17. 17. In view of the aforesaid finding, the Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation which is in tabular form as under:- S. No. Compensation As per Impugned Award (Rs.) 1. Dependency Loss Income 80,015/- Prospective Income (15%) 12,002/- Total 92,017/- Deduction of Towards Personal Expenses ¼ 23,004/- Total 69,013/- 12 months (54,853x12) 8,28,156/- Multiplier 13 91,09716/- 2. Loss of Consortium Spouse 48,400/- Filial 1,45,200/- Parental 48,400 3. Loss of Estate 18,150/- 4. Funeral Expenses 18,150/- Grand Total 93,88,016/- Enhanced Amount 7,60,948/- 18. The Court may hereby record that pending the appeal, the widow mother of the deceased had recently expired in the year 2023 and a statement made on behalf of the original claimants that there are no other legal heirs and representative of the mother of the deceased to which learned advocate for the insurance company does not contravene and therefore, the compensation to be received on behalf of the widowed mother of the deceased (since deceased) is ordered to be proportionately distributed amongst the remaining claimants. 19. The Court also observes that during the course of argument, agreed upon calculation has been provided jointly by the counsels. Learned advocate for the insurance company has prayed for period of eight weeks to deposit the difference in the compensation. 20. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to aforesaid extent. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed: [A] The present appeal is partly allowed accordingly in above terms. [B] The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.7,60,948/- from the date of claim petition till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. [C] The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon if any, to the claimant, by 'Account Payee Cheque'/RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. [D] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the Courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with the Rules. [E] Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. 21. Accordingly, the appeal and Cross Objections stand disposed of and the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent.