JUDGMENT This is an appeal under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Por enhancement of compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in claim case No.4 7 of 91, decided on 28.4.1994. Late Shri Mukut Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of respondents No.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, the New India Insurance 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 annual dependancy of the appellants comes to Rs. 6,000/p.a. Applying a multiplier of 14, the Tribunal has determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 84,000/-. 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 II Schedule of the 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. Shri Shukla, 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. 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 appellant No.1. 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 appellant No.1. It ought to have been ignored by the Tribunal to work out the annual dependency of the appellants. Looking to the future prospects of the deceased that he would have earned the promotion on the higher post of Assistant Food Officer, we think that his salary would have been approximately Rs. 2,000/- p.m. After deducting the conventional one-third amount we determine the annual dependency of the appellant at Rs. 16,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16, the amount comes to Rs. 2,56,000/-. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation on other heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium, 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 the respondents jointly and severally to the appellants. The enhanced amount would carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal in the High Court till realisation. The appeal is thus partly allowed to the extent indicated above with costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-.