ORDER Mishra, J. -- 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimants aggrieved by award dated 10.4.2001 passed by First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 06/2000. 2. The claimants are legal representatives ofthe deceased and three minor children of late Shri Jagdish Yadav. Jagdish Yadav was working as Senior Agriculture Development Officer in Narmada Vally Development Authority. He was withdrawing salary of Rs.8,580/- per month. On 17.10.1999 when he was going from Khandwa to Khargone alongwith pillion rider Praveen Dubey on his motorcycle, he met with an accident on Deogaon-Bhikangaon road with Tempo Trax. (M.P. 10-A 3125), it was alleged that Rakesh drove tile tempo trax in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle owing to which Shri Jagdish Yadav and Shri Praveen Dubey sustained serious injuries. Jagdish died on the way to the hospital. The motorcycle was also damaged. The FIR of the accident was lodged at Police Station Deogaon by Praveen Dubey (CW 1). The offence was registered against Shri Rakesh, driver of the tempo trax under section 304 of IPC. 3. The tempo trax was owned by Umesh. It was insured with the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. The total compensation of Rs. 27,10,280/- was claimed. 4. The driver and the owner did not file their written statement before the Claims Tribunal. The insurer in written statement contended that it was case of negligence on the part of the deceased himself. He drove the motor cycle rashly and negligently. Both the deceased and the driver of tampo trax did not have valid and effective licence at the time of accident in violation of insurance policy, hence the insurer is not liable for payment of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal found that the respondent No.1, driver of the tempo trax drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the motor cycle owing to which Jagdish Yadav died. It was not the case of contributory negligence. The deceased was not negligent. The learned Claims Tribunal has found the salary of the deceased at Rs. 8,580/- per month. However, considering chance of promotion, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 10,000/per month. 1/3rd amount has to be deducted for self expenditure of the deceased which he would have spent on him, had he been alive. The widow of the deceased was receiving Rs. 3,000/- per month as family pension. 8,580/- per month. However, considering chance of promotion, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs. 10,000/per month. 1/3rd amount has to be deducted for self expenditure of the deceased which he would have spent on him, had he been alive. The widow of the deceased was receiving Rs. 3,000/- per month as family pension. This amount has been deducted from the dependency. Only Rs. 36,000/-has been worked out as dependency. The age of the deceased was 44 years. The multiplier of 14 has been applied. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 5,61,000/- has been awarded inclusive of funeral expenses and other customary heads. In addition for damage of the motorcycle Rs. 12,000/- has been awarded. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 5,73,000/- has been ordered to be paid alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition alongwith costs Rs. 1,500/-, being dis-satisfied with the award the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the award and record, in our opinion the approach of the learned Claim Tribunal cannot be said to be proper for determining the compensation. There is nothing on record that the deceased was due for promotion or was found fit. It is just a chance which was not certain. Enhancement of salary to Rs. 10,000/- per month was not proper, the salary as drawn ought to have been taken as basis for determining compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the deceased was withdrawing the salary of Rs. 8,580/- including the dearness allowance which has to be taken into consideration for determine the just compensation payable. 7. The deduction made on account of receiving the family pension is illegal and impermissible. No such amount can be deducted as per settled law as the family pension is not the benefit arising out of the accident. It is otherwise avoidable, if death takes place in other manner. At the age of 44 years the multiplier of 15 is applicable whereas the multiplier of 14 has been applied. 8. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation. The salary of the deceased apparent from the salary certificate (P-10) he was drawing Rs. 8,580/- per month. It is otherwise avoidable, if death takes place in other manner. At the age of 44 years the multiplier of 15 is applicable whereas the multiplier of 14 has been applied. 8. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation. The salary of the deceased apparent from the salary certificate (P-10) he was drawing Rs. 8,580/- per month. After deducting 1/3 which amount deceased would have spent on himself, had he been alive, Monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,720/- and annual Rs. (5,720x12) = 68,640/- is worked out as yearly dependency. After applying the multiplier of fifteen 68,640x15 = 10,29,600/-. We are not disturbing the amount of 12,000/- awarded on account of damage to the Motor Cycle, as no cross objection has been filed. We award the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of consortium to widow, Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation for death comes to Rs. 10,29,600 + 5,000 + 5,000 + 2,000 + 2,500 = 10,44,100/- (Rs. ten lacs, forty four thousand and one hundred only) and Rs. 12,000/- for damage to motorcycle is not disturbed. The enhanced amount to carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim case. 9. The appeal is allowed in part. No costs.