Judgment S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the non-claimant-respondent No. 1 is the employee of the non-claimant-respondent no. 2; on the fateful day the non-claimant- respondent No. 1 was driving the bus of the non-claimant-respondent No. 2, Rajasthan state Road Transport Corporation and as a result of his rash and negligent driving the accident occurred and therein one Sunil kumar, who was on the scooter, died. ( 2 ) THE matter is placed on the Board as fresh process fee and notices of non-claimant-respondent no. 1 have not been filed. The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that for the final decision in the matter presence of non-claimant- respondent No. 1 is not necessary, thus the service of notice of non-claimant appellant no. 1 is dispensed with. ( 3 ) LOOKING to the nature of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. ( 4 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal. ( 5 ) THE claimant-appellant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased Sunil Kumar, the claimant-appellant No. 2 is his son and claimant-appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are his parents. ( 6 ) THE learned Claims Tribunal under the award dated 18. 11. 2000, awarded a sum of Rs. 13,01,000 as compensation. The claimants-appellants, for enhancement thereof, have filed the appeal. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased sunil Kumar was in permanent government service, headmaster in the Education department. ( 8 ) HE was drawing the monthly salary of Rs. 10,618 and in this respect there is no dispute. ( 9 ) THE evidence has come on the record that he was doing tuition work also and was earning Rs. 4,000 per month. ( 10 ) HE was mathematics teacher. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, on being put by the court, does not dispute that legally it was not permissible to a government teacher to do private tuitions and he does not press the appeal on this point. 4,000 per month. ( 10 ) HE was mathematics teacher. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, on being put by the court, does not dispute that legally it was not permissible to a government teacher to do private tuitions and he does not press the appeal on this point. ( 11 ) I find sufficient merits in the contention of learned counsel for claimants- appellants that though the deceased was in permanent government service, but the tribunal has not taken into consideration his future prospects of increase in salary. The deceased was aged 40 years. He had long period of 20 years service and I have no hesitation to state that his salary would have become double by the time of his attaining the age of superannuation, thus the learned Tribunal has committed a glaring error to take the income of the deceased only at Rs. 10,618 per month. Accordingly, for the purpose of award of compensation under the head of loss of economic dependency to the family, i take monthly income of deceased at Rs. 21,236 (Rs. 10,618 x 2); one-third thereof,. e. , Rs. 7,079 is deducted for his personal expenses and remaining two-third thereof,. e. , Rs. 14,157 is taken as economic dependency. Thus the total compensation under this head comes to rs. 25,48,260 (Rs. 14,157 x 12 x 15); out of which the amount of Rs. 12,74,040 has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal and the enhanced amount, under this head comes to Rs. 12,74,220. ( 12 ) I also find sufficient merit and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for claimants-appellants that the amount of Rs. 10,000 awarded under the head of loss of consortium to the claimant- appellant No. 1, the wife of the deceased, is towards the lower side; she is suffering from cancer disease. She became widow at the young age and to survive without the life partner at this age is painful and more so when she is suffering from cancer; it cannot be compensated in terms of money but it does not mean a nominal sum to be awarded; whatever amount is awarded under this head is only a solace to provide a lady who became widow at this young age. I am satisfied that under this head the amount of compensation deserves to be increased from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. I am satisfied that under this head the amount of compensation deserves to be increased from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000; and thus the total enhanced amount under this head comes to Rs. 15,000. ( 13 ) SIMILARLY, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of deprival of love and affection to the son and also the love and affection to the parents, is also towards the lower side; the son, under this head has been awarded Rs. 5,000 and the parents have been awarded Rs. 5,000 each. In my opinion, the amount of Rs. 5,000 as compensation awarded by the learned tribunal to the son under the head of loss of love and affection and guidance, should have been Rs. 15,000 and accordingly it is increased. The amount of Rs. 5,000 each, as compensation awarded by the learned tribunal to the parents under the head of loss of love and affection, should have been Rs. 15,000 to each. Thus the total enhanced amount under this head comes to rs. 45,000. Thus, the total enhanced amount of compensation will come to Rs. 13,19,220 (Rs. 12,74,220 + Rs. 45,000 ). Claimants- appellants shall also be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment thereof. The non-claimant- respondent No. 2, Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation, is directed to forthwith deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest thereon, in this court say within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, by account payee cheque or demand draft or a pay order, drawn in the name of the Registrar (Administration) of this court. ( 14 ) ON deposit of the amount of enhanced compensation with interest, the court shall pass the order for disbursement/investment thereof. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.