JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Both these appeals relate to the same accident and are cross-appeals and therefore, were heard together and are hereby disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 23.03.2009 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1109/1995, New India Insurance Company (Insurer of Ambassador car) has preferred First Appeal No.4498/2009, whereas the original claimants have preferred First Appeal No.134/2010 for enhancement of compensation, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 3. Considering the facts of the case and at the request of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, present appeal is taken up for its final disposal forthwith. Perused the original record and proceedings. 4. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeals:- 4.1 That on 01.05.1995, deceased viz. Navinchandra Sakarchand Laghani and his other friends were travelling in a hired taxi bearing Registration No.GJ-1-U-2614 from Ahmedabad to Deesa and at about 03:30 A.M, when they reached near Rajpur village, one truck came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the taxi on driver side, due to which, the deceased and his friends sustained serious injuries, but the deceased succumbed to the injuries. In connection with the said accident, FIR being C.R.No.111/1995 came to be registered at Kadi Police Station, Dist. Mehsana. 4.2 It is the case of the claimants that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck. 4.3 It is further the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 40 years on the date of accident and was earning at around Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- p.m. 4.4 Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.21,23,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5 % p.a from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 4.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said compensation, the Insurance Company has filed First Appeal No.4498/2009 and the original claimants have filed First Appeal No.134/2010 for enhancement of compensation, as stated hereinabove. 5. 4.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said compensation, the Insurance Company has filed First Appeal No.4498/2009 and the original claimants have filed First Appeal No.134/2010 for enhancement of compensation, as stated hereinabove. 5. The original claimants examined Santokben (wife of the deceased) at Exh:19 and have also relied upon the documentary evidence, such as, FIR at Exh:25, Panchnama of Scene of accident at Exh:26, P.M Report of the deceased at Exh:28, Driving licence of driver of Ambassador car at Exh:29, Insurance Policy of Ambassador car at Exh:30, Income tax returns of the deceased at Exh : 24/1 and the income statements at Exh:24/2. 6. The Tribunal after considering the said documents came to the conclusion that the driver of the Ambassador car was negligent to the extent of 30 % and driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 70 % and also considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2,10,380/- p. a. and after giving prospective rise of Rs.14,620/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.21 lakhs as compensation under the loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/- under the different conventional heads and granted total compensation of Rs.21,23,000/- along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Therefore, aggrieved by the said compensation, the Insurance Company has preferred First Appeal No.4498/2009. 7. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in First Appeal No.4498/2009 has contended the following main grounds: (i) That the Tribunal has erred in assessing the contributory negligence of the driver of the car to the extent of 30 % and has wrongly appreciated the evidence in form of FIR at Exh:25 and panchnama of scene of accident at Exh:26. (ii) That the accident occurred only because on the part of the driver of the truck and therefore, driver of the truck ought to have been held solely negligent. (iii) The Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,10,380/- p.a. without considering the cross-examination of the original claimants. (iv) That the Tribunal has erred in not deducting the amount of income tax returns paid by the deceased while determining the income of the deceased. (iii) The Tribunal has materially erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,10,380/- p.a. without considering the cross-examination of the original claimants. (iv) That the Tribunal has erred in not deducting the amount of income tax returns paid by the deceased while determining the income of the deceased. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that, First Appeal No.4498/2009 deserves to be allowed, as prayed for, and First Appeal No.134/2010 filed by the original claimants is without any merits and on the contrary, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be sliced down and therefore, the appeal filed by the original claimants deserves to be dismissed. 8. Per contra, Mr. Thakore and Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the original claimants has contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of negligence after considering the documents on record before it. It was also contended that as it is the case of composite negligence, the original claimants are entitled to recover amount of compensation from either of the tort-fisher. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the annual income of the deceased at Rs.2,10,380/- only based upon the income tax returns produced on record. However, the Tribunal erred in granting future rise in income of the deceased. Further, the deceased was 40 years on the date of accident and was doing a business at the time of accident and therefore, the original claimants would be entitled to future rise to the extent of 25 %. It was also contended that the deceased had 4 dependents and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and ought to have been deducted 1/4th of the income amount. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, [ 2017 (16) SCC 680 ], it was contended that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs.23,000/- towards different conventional heads, which should be enhanced to Rs.70,000/- as per the settled proposition of law. On the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the original claimants has submitted that First Appeal filed by the Insurance Company being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. No other or further submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. On the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the original claimants has submitted that First Appeal filed by the Insurance Company being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. No other or further submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. Upon considering the manner in which the accident has taken place, more particularly, the damage to the offending vehicle, which is quite evident from the FIR at Exh:25 as well as from the panchnama of scene of offence at Exh:26 and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of negligence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the Ambassador car was negligent to the extent of 30 % and driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 70 % and therefore, the same does not require any alteration. The Tribunal has based the determination of the income of the deceased on the income tax returns for the assessment year 199495, has correctly taken into consideration the same. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in giving prospective income only to the extent of Rs.14,620/-. Following the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the original claimants would be entitled to prospective income to the tune of 25 %. It is also found that the Tribunal has considered the aspect of deduction of income tax returns, which is paid. The income tax return which is relied upon by the original claimants clearly shows that the deceased had paid Rs.70,730/- as income tax. It is settled law that the income would mean “gross income (minus) tax paid” and thus, the income tax so paid by the deceased deserves to be deducted while determining yearly income. 10. Record also indicates that there are 4 dependents of the deceased and therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] as well as Pranay Sethi (supra), deduction has to be 1/4th. 11. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the original claimants would be entitled to compensation under the loss of dependency as under: Rs.2,10,380/- + Rs. 52,593/- Income p.a. As per the income tax returns (25 % future Rise) Rs. 2,62,975/- - Rs. [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] as well as Pranay Sethi (supra), deduction has to be 1/4th. 11. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the original claimants would be entitled to compensation under the loss of dependency as under: Rs.2,10,380/- + Rs. 52,593/- Income p.a. As per the income tax returns (25 % future Rise) Rs. 2,62,975/- - Rs. 70,730/- Yearly Income Income tax Rs. 1,92,245/- - Rs. 48,061/- 1/4 towards personal expenses Rs. 1,44,184/- Yearly Income 12. The deceased was 40 years on the date of accident and therefore, multiplier of 14 would be applicable and therefore, the original claimants would be entitled to Rs.20,18,576/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Over and above the same, the original claimants would also be entitled to additional amount of Rs.70,000/- under the different conventional heads as per the judgment of the Apex court in the cases of Pranasy Sethi (supra) as well as Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, the appellants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,88,576/-. 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention that the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.21,23,000/- and thus, there is reduction of only Rs.34,424/-. Applying the principles of just compensation and considering the smallness of amount, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed as the difference is only Rs.34,424/-. For the foregoing, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.