Akil Kureshi, J.

The First Appeal and Cross Objections have been filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively challenging the judgment and award dated 20.3.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in MACP No.407/2005.

2. Briefly stated, facts are that one Salim Mohmadbhai aged about 40 years was travelling from Rajkot to Jamdevalia in Jamnagar district late at night on 27.2.2005 in his Maruti van. He was driving the van and was the only passenger in the vehicle. Just outside the city of Rajkot on Jamnagar road at about 2:10 am, his car collided with a luxury bus coming from the opposite direction causing serious damage to the vehicle and instantaneous death of the driver. Deceased Salim was employed as a Branch Manager in Rajkot Gramin Bank which was later on renamed as Saurashtra Gramin Bank. He had joined the service of the bank in the year 1988 as an officer and was promoted as a Branch Manager in the year 2003. His dependents i.e. his widow, minor children and aged father filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 50 lacs from the driver, owner and insurer of the luxury bus involved in the accident. This claim was later on revised to Rs. 70 lacs. The Claims Tribunal held the driver of the luxury bus solely negligent in causing the accident and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 34,99,824/- to the claimants. In the process, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident at Rs. 22,492/-, granted 30% for future rise, deducted 1/3rd thereof for the personal expenditure of the deceased to arrive at the dependency benefits of Rs. 19,492/- per month for the family. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 14 to arrive at loss of dependency benefits at Rs. 32,74.824/-. To this the Tribunal added sum of Rs. 1 lac for loss of consortium, Rs. 1 lac for loss of love and affection for children and Rs. 25,000/- for funeral expenses.

3. The advocate for the Insurance company raised the following contentions in support of the appeal :

(1) The Tribunal erred in holding the driver of the luxury bus solely negligent in causing the accident.

(2) The Tribunal did not deduct the income-tax from the gross salary of the deceased to arrive at net take home pay.

(3) The total award of Rs. 2.25 lacs under the conventional heads is not in tune with the judgment of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. v/s. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 3 GLH 536.

(4) Counsel submitted that the widow of the deceased was appointed on compassionate grounds by the bank in which the deceased himself was serving. The salary received by the widow on account of such employment should have been at-least partially adjusted against the compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal.

4. On the other hand, learned advocates Shri Jenil M. Shah and Ms. Shaili A. Shah appearing for the claimants opposed the appeal and requested for enhancement of compensation on the following grounds :

(1) The Claims Tribunal committed no error in holding that the driver of the luxury bus was solely negligent in causing the accident.

(2) The Tribunal erred in granting only 30% rise in income for future when there was reliable evidence suggesting that had deceased not met with the accident, his income would have increased manifold during his remaining service tenure.

(3) There were four dependents including aged father. Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenditure of the deceased instead of 1/4th of his prospective income.

(4) The date of birth of the deceased was 16.4.1964. He was therefore, in the age group of 36 to 40. Multiplier of 15 as per the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, should have been applied instead of 14.

5. We would first address the question of negligence. As no