VERMA AND SETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation awarded by the First Addl. Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in the claim Case No. 47 of 1991, decided on 28. 4. 1994. ( 2 ) LATE Mukut Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 5, died in a road accident on 25. 12. 1987 when the passenger bus No. CIF 1986 ran over Mukut Singh. As a result he died on the spot. At the time of the accident the deceased was working as Food Inspector and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,284 per month. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver, which was undisputedly insured with respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal, after deducting the amount of family pension which the appellant No. 1 is getting, has arrived at a finding that the dependency of the appellant comes to rs. 6,000 per annum. Applying a multiplier of 14, the Tribunal has determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 84,000. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in taking into account the amount of family pension being paid to appellant No. 1 on account of death of her husband while he was in service. It is further contended that the Tribunal determined the annual dependency on a lower side and wrongly applied the multiplier of 14, which looking to the age of the deceased at the time of the accident ought to have been 16, as per the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles act. It is also contended that it has been established on record that the deceased had better future promotional prospects and would have earned promotion within the next two years had he not died on account of the motor accident. The next promotional post was of Assistant Food officer. ( 4 ) MR. Shukla, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 very fairly conceded that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably so as to make it just and proper compensation. The next promotional post was of Assistant Food officer. ( 4 ) MR. Shukla, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 very fairly conceded that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably so as to make it just and proper compensation. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the tribunal erred in taking into account the amount of family pension received by the appellant No. 1. It ought to have been ignored by the Tribunal to work out annual dependency of the appellants. Looking to the future prospects of the deceased that he would have earned promotion to the higher post of Assistant Food Officer, we think that his salary would then have been approximately Rs. 2,000 p. m. On deducting the conventional one-third amount we determine dependency of the appellant at rs. 16,000 per annum. Applying multiplier of 16, amount comes to Rs. 2,56,000. The Claims Tribunal has also not awarded compensation on other heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, etc. In our view the appellants are also entitled to a further sum of rs. 44,000 on other heads as mentioned above, thus making the total of Rs. 3,00,000 as the amount of compensation payable by respondents jointly and severally to the appellants. The enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of appeal in the High Court till realisation. Appeal is thus partly allowed to the extent indicated above with costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .