C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) MOTHER, widow and children of s. a. Jabbar (the deceased), who died in an accident caused by a jeep bearing No. Apd-5750, belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said jeep, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the respondents and examined two witnesses as p. ws. Land 2 and marked exs. A-1 toa-6on their behalf. First respondent chose to remain ex parte before the tribunal and in this court also. Second respondent, who filed a counter contesting the claim, did not adduce any oral evidence butmarked e. x. B-1 by consent. The tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep, a wa rded Rs. 2,39,000/- as compensation to the appellants. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them, claimants preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) SINCE this is an appeal by the claimants, seeking higher compensation than that was awarded, the point for consideration is to what compensation are the appellants entitled to? ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the evidence of P. W. 2, senior assistant in railways at guntakal, clearly shows that the deceased as diesel engine driver was drawing about Rs. 5,299. 15 ps. Per month, the tribunal, having rightly taken the contribution of the deceased to the appellants at Rs. 3,600/- per month, erred in deducting Rs. 1,860/- per month from that amount on the ground that the evidence of P. W. 2 shows that subsequent to the death of the deceased, appellants are being paid family pension. Relying on Geethakiimari v. Rubber Board, Krishna Kinra v. Dalip Singh, Bhoj Raj v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. , Kusumalatatrivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Sukhi v. Hem Singh, and MRS. Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. . He contended that family pension cannot be taken into consideration while fixing the contribution of the deceased victim in a motor accident case to his dependents. Relying on Jyoti Kaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh and K. Vasanth v. G. Appaiah he contended balance of service of the deceased should be taken as the relevant multiplier. Heard the learned counsel for second respondent. Relying on Jyoti Kaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh and K. Vasanth v. G. Appaiah he contended balance of service of the deceased should be taken as the relevant multiplier. Heard the learned counsel for second respondent. ( 4 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2, read with ex. A-6, shows that besides the basic pay of Rs. 1560/-, deceased was drawing dearness allowances of 92% and house rent allowance of Rs. 220/- and running and nightduty allowance of Rs. 2000/-per month on an average and that some amount was being deducted towards income tax and profession tax. So, it is evident that the deceased was an income tax assessee. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was an income tax assessee and used to earn extra income by doing night duty and used to get running allowance and would have earned increments, after making provision for income tax, profession tax and other statutory deductions and his requirements from the take home salary, his annual contribution to the appellants can be taken as Rs. 32,000/ -. ( 5 ) IN geethakiimari case (1 supra), krishna kinra case (2 supra), bhoj raj case (3 supra), kusumalata trivedi case", sukhi case and mrs. Helen c. Rebello case relied on by the learned counsel for appellants, the courts held that the fact that an heir of a deceased victim in a motor vehicle accident was given compassionate appointment or that family pension is being received by them or that they received insurance claim consequent on the death of the victim from his life insurance claim cannot be taken into consideration for arriving at the contribution of the deceased victim to his dependents, for arriving at the damages payable to the claimants inan accident. In fact, in mrs, helen c. Rebellocase (6 supra) the apex court clearly held that all benefits or advantages or amounts etc. The legal representatives of a deceased victim in a motor vehicle accident, could have received, even if he did not die due to a motor vehicle accident, cannot be taken into consideration for arriving at the compensation payable to the legal representatives of a deceased victim in a motor vehicle accident. Appellants would have been entitled to receive family pension even if the deceased did not die due to a motor vehicle accident, but died due to some other reasons while in service. Appellants would have been entitled to receive family pension even if the deceased did not die due to a motor vehicle accident, but died due to some other reasons while in service. Therefore, in view of the ratio in Mr. C. Helen c. Rebello case (6 supra) family pension being received by the appellants cannot be taken into consideration for arriving at the compensation payable to the appellants. ( 6 ) SINCE the evidence of P. W. 2 shows that the date of birth of the deceased, as per service register, is 02-04-1947, and since the deceased died on 26-03-1993 the deceased was aged about 46 years by the date of his death. Depending on the fact situations in those cases in jyoti kaul case (7 supra) and k. Vasantha case (8 supra) the multipliers were fixed. As per the service conditions in force by the date of death of the deceased, the age of retirement was 58 years only. So, he was having 12 years of service. As per the ratio in bhngwan das v. Mohd. Arif, the multiplier in case of death of a person aged 45 would be 10. 45 . In the circumstances of the case, the multiplier can be taken as 11 . So, the pecuniary damages payable to the appellants would come to Rs. 32,000/- x 11 = 3,52,000/ -. ( 7 ) SINCE the second appellant lost her husband, she is entitled to loss of consortium which i fix at Rs. 15,000/ -. ( 8 ) IN V. Varalakshmi v. M. Nageswara Rao it is held that in every case of a fatal accident a minimum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- has to be awarded to the claimants towards non-pecuniary damages like pain and suffering etc. Keeping in view the age, earnings and the date of accident, the non-pecuniary damages can be fixed at Rs. 25,000/- and thus appellants are entitled to Rs. 3,52,000/- + Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 3,92,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. The point is answered accordingly. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award of the tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs. 3,92,000/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 2,39,000/- from the date of petition till the date of deposit into court and with interest at 9% per annum on Rs. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award of the tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs. 3,92,000/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 2,39,000/- from the date of petition till the date of deposit into court and with interest at 9% per annum on Rs. 1,53,000/- from the date of the award of tribunal i. e. , 24-12-1994 till the date of deposit into court with proportionate costs in the tribunal. Rest of the claim of appellants is dismissed without costs. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. From out of the said amount, first appellant (mother of the deceased) is entitled to Rs. 42,000/- and interest thereon, appellants 3 to 7 are each entitled to Rs. 55,000/- and interest thereon and second appellant is entitled to Rs. 75,000/- and interest thereon.