P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West godavari, at Eluru, passed in O. P. No. 387 of 1994, dated 31/10/1998. The claimants are appellants. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that on 30/3/1994 at about 1. 00 p. m. , the deceased, who was a Regional Deputy Director, information and Public Relations Department, vijayawada was going in a jeep bearing no. AP 16-U/2164 along with his driver and when they reached at K. M. Stone 71/6-71/8 on N. H. No. 5 near Denduluru village, West godavari District, lorry bearing No. ATW4559 driven by the first respondent coming from hyderabad side came in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed the said jeep. Consequently the deceased in this o. P. and the driver of the lorry died. ( 3 ) SEPARATE O. P. for compensation forthe death of the driver is also filed and tried as o. P. No. 389 of 1994 along with the present o. P. No. 387 of 1994. ( 4 ) A joint trial was held and in this case the petitioners claimed a compensation of rs. 15,00,000. 00. A compensation of rs. 5,85,500. 00 was awarded by the Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE contesting respondent-insurance company did not file any appeal and the only question in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that the date of birth of the deceased was 1/3/1954 and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 5,928-00 p. m. which was taken as Rs. 6,000. 00. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was the Deputy director in Information and Public Relations department, Vijayawada and he was the regional Deputy Directorforthree districts in the zone. The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 40 years, applied the multiplier of 12, and reduced V3rd of the total income. Thus, deducting Rs. 2,000. 00 from the salary of Rs. 6,000. 00 per month and calculated annual income at Rs. 48,000. 00 and granted a compensation of Rs. 5,76,000. 00 towards loss of dependency, Rs. 2,000. 00 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500. 00 towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000. 00 towards loss of consortium. Thus, the total comes to Rs. 5,85,500. 00. 2,000. 00 from the salary of Rs. 6,000. 00 per month and calculated annual income at Rs. 48,000. 00 and granted a compensation of Rs. 5,76,000. 00 towards loss of dependency, Rs. 2,000. 00 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500. 00 towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000. 00 towards loss of consortium. Thus, the total comes to Rs. 5,85,500. 00. ( 7 ) NOW, the contention of the learned counsel forthe appellants isthatthe deceased was just aged 40 years, he was working as senior Government Servant, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the prospects of his future promotions and earnings, that during the course of time his salary would have gone up manifold and he would have been promoted even upto the rankof Director. As such, the compensation granted is inadequate. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, the contention of the contesting respondents is that as lump sum amount is being paid, the Tribunal correctly granted the compensation on the basis of the salary of the deceased on the date of the accident. ( 9 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to allow the appeal. ( 10 ) AS referred above; facts that the deceased was aged 40 years, was getting salary around Rs. 6,000. 00 per month, and was working as Senior Officer in the State government as Deputy Director are not in dispute. ( 11 ) IF the salary of Rs. 6,000. 00 is taken into consideration, the compensation of rs. 5,76,0007- granted by the Tribunal is in order. The question is whether any higher amount of income can be taken into consideration in view of the prospects of promotions before retirement of thedeceased in case he was alive and consequent enhancement of salary not only on account of promotions, but on account of periodical increase in Dearness allowance, increments, pay revisions etc. As the deceased was aged 40 years, it cannot be disputed that he could have at least got one or two promotions. It also cannot be disputed that during the span of 18 years of service, there would have been at least two or three pay revisions and his salary would have gone up about three times on account of pay revisions, periodical increments and enhancement of Dearness allowance. The question is whether these aspects can be taken into consideration while fixing the dependency. The question is whether these aspects can be taken into consideration while fixing the dependency. ( 12 ) THE learned counselforthepetitioners relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in sara/a Dixit v. Balwant Yadav^ in support of his contention. This decision was cited before the Tribunal also. In this case, where a service personnel of 27 years, drawing a salary of rs. 1,5437- per month died, the Hon ble supreme Court relying on a precedent observed,"adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of rs. 1,5437-per month. Rounding it up to figure of Rs. 1,5007- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i. e. , up to Rs. 3,0007- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career til! the time of superannuation. The average gross future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs. 1,500. 00 per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i. e. , Rs. 3,000. 00 per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus, the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs,4,500. 00 divided by 2 i. e. , rs. 2,200. 00. Rs. 2,200. 00 per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a breadwinner. Thus, the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs,4,500. 00 divided by 2 i. e. , rs. 2,200. 00. Rs. 2,200. 00 per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family of the deceased had he survived as a breadwinner. "but the learned Tribunal has not relied on the above decision observing that the Supreme court relied on the circumstances of that case by referring to brilliant academic qualification and the medals the deceased got at the young age of 27 years when he was working as Captain and the fact that he was fully qualified for promotion to the rank of major at the time of his death, that in the case on hand no such circumstances were existing, that there is no pleading that salary of the deceased was covered by any revision of pay scales. ( 13 ) WE feel that the observation of the tribunal is wholly unsustainable. In the present case also the deceased was reasonably young being 40 years old and his employment was completely secured. As he was holding State Government post, the prospects of pay revision were obvious. The deceased was definitely fully qualified for next promotions upto certain level. ( 14 ) IT has to be accepted that in cases of employment in Government, security is 100% and promotions are mostly a matter of course. In crease in salary on account of enhancement of Dearness Allowance and annual increments are automatic. May be in cases like Last Grade Servants chances of promotion are less and nil in cases of unqualified persons in such category. But, even for them, there would be periodical revision and enhancement of pay on account of increments and enhancement of Dearness allowance etc. May be in some such cases, on account of lump sum payment of compensation, it may not be appropriate to add substantial amounts to actual earnings on the date of death; but, in case of senior officers, particularly, with substantial service, we feel that possibility of enhancement of salary, in future, has to be taken into consideration, though lumpsum payments are made. ( 15 ) IN case of private employment, even a person gets very high salary also, there is no security of employment and there is no guarantee of continuity of service also. ( 15 ) IN case of private employment, even a person gets very high salary also, there is no security of employment and there is no guarantee of continuity of service also. In such cases, guaranteed future enhancement of income is not there and the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing of compensation. Even in such cases, where it is proved, with the help of substantial evidence about the possibility of future enhancement of salary, perhaps, for the purpose of fixing the compensation, the future increase in salary can be taken into consideration. ( 16 ) THUS, as far as Government employees are concerned, we are of the view that in cases of persons with substantial future service, positive view can be taken with regard to future enhancement of the salary, forthe purpose of fixing compensation. Thus, applying the principle laid down in sara/a Dixit case (1 supra), we feel that the income of the deceased for the purpose of deciding the loss of dependency has to be calculated as has been done in the above decision. In which event the calculation would be, the salary of the deceased at the time of his death Rs. 6,000. 00, the average gross monthly income spread over his future career i. e. , Rs. 9,000-00 (i. e. , Rs. 6,000+ Rs. 12,000 = Rs. 18,000/2) and if 1/3rd of Rs. 9,000-00 is deducted towards his personal expenses, it comes to Rs,6,000. 00which comes to Rs,6,000 x 12=rs. 72,000. 00 and the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 72,000 x 12 = Rs. 8,64,000. 00. ( 17 ) THUS, in this case, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of rs. 8,73,500. 00 (Rs. 8,64,000 + 2,000 + 2,500 + 5,000 ). ( 18 ) HOWEVER, in view of the prevailing rate s of interest, we hold that the petitioners would be entitled for interest only at the rate of 7. 5% from the date of appeal till the date of realization of amount, on the entire amount of compensation awarded. From the date of accident till the award the interest would be at the rate of 12% per annum as awarded by the tribunal. The apportionment and withdrawal of the amount by different claimants shall be in the same proportion and terms as ordered by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. From the date of accident till the award the interest would be at the rate of 12% per annum as awarded by the tribunal. The apportionment and withdrawal of the amount by different claimants shall be in the same proportion and terms as ordered by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs.