JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original clamant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 23.04.2015, passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) Kutchh at Gandhidham in MACP No. 334 of 2011. By the said judgment and award the tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 holding them entitled to recover amount of Rs. 10,83,000/- with proportionate cost and with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum, from the date of claim petition till its realisation from its opponents, jointly and severally.

2. Considering the ground raised in the appeal memo and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 24.082015 had admitted the appeal. The record and proceedings were called for. The record suggest that despite attempts being made to serve to respondents No. 3 and 4 who are the driver and the owner of the other vehicle (rickshaw), they could not be served. Pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2017, passed by this Court in the present proceedings, they have been deleted from the array of parties.

3. Learned advocate Mr. C.S. Shukla has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2-S. T Corporation whereas respondent No. 1 is reported to have expired. With the able assistance of learned advocate on record for the respective parties, the appeal is finally heard.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the quantum of compensation being determined on the lower side. It was submitted that the Tribunal committed error in determining the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- per month despite salary certificate being produced on record at Exh. 60 and duly proved through the evidence of the accountant who has been examined at Exh. 59. On bare appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid salary certificate and fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal took note of the pleadings made in the claim petition and had confined the income to Rs. 8,000/- which is required to be reconsidered. Learned advocate had further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the future prospective income of the deceased. It was pointed out that the deceased was aged 41 years at the time of accident. Considering the well settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and considering the fact that the deceased was a salaried person and his age falling in the age group of between 40 to 50 years, at least 25% prospective rise is required to be considered for the purpose of determining dependency loss. As regards the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is concerned, it was pointed out that the deceased was survived by a widow and their four children and, therefore, 1/4th of the income is to be deducted. It was further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also required to be revisited in view of the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned advocate has urged this Court to allow this appeal and to enhance the amount of compensation which may be awarded with interest and proportionate cost.

5. Learned advocate Mr. C. S. Shukla appearing for the respondent S.T Corporation has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant. In such circumstances, considering the well settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal ought to have applied 1/5 deduction instead of ¼. Learned advocate has mainly relied upon the findings and r