A. K. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants against the award dated 28. 2. 2004 passed in Claim case No. 116 of 2003 by learned Fourth motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast track), Mhow, District Indore. ( 2 ) ON 12. 6. 2002 Ajay Kumar Dable, son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, gaurishanker and Laxmidevi was coming from Sirsaganj in his Fiat car bearing registration no. MP 09-HC 6541. At about 6 p. m. when he reached National Highway 2, District Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh) near village Vahad on the turn of Arav Tiwaria, a truck bearing registration No. DL 1-GB 446 coming from Etawah side dashed the car of deceased Ajay Kumar Dable. Due to the impact, the car of the deceased Ajay kumar Dable got badly damaged and he sustained severe injuries and succumbed to his injuries on the spot itself. The cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and it was insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant point of time. Appellants preferred a claim petition before the learned tribunal, claiming compensation for the loss caused to them due to the death of deceased Ajay Kumar Dable in the said accident. ( 3 ) THE respondents opposed the claim of the claimants-appellants. The learned claims Tribunal, after framing and trying the issues allowed the claim in part and passed an award of Rs. 10,88,500 in favour of the claimants-appellants against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the quantum of the award, the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for getting the quantum of award enhanced. ( 4 ) THE questions to be determined in this appeal are that whether the appellant nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to receive any sum as compensation in addition to what has already been awarded to them and whether the appellant No. 3 and Devkibai, the sister of deceased are also entitled to receive any amount as compensation? ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the appellants deceased ajay Kumar Dable received Rs. 34,958 after deducting the amount of leave encashment. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the amount of leave encashment could not be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the appellants deceased ajay Kumar Dable received Rs. 34,958 after deducting the amount of leave encashment. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the amount of leave encashment could not be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The amount of leave encashment cannot be said to have been received as the monthly income and it cannot be added and treated as monthly income of the deceased. ( 6 ) IT has been stated by the appellant no. 1, Gaurishanker Dable, in his statement that deceased was spending about rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month on himself. The deceased who was an unmarried youth was living at Pata, District auraiya, Uttar Pradesh while his parents have been living at Mhow, District Indore. In such circumstances, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting rs. 15,000 as the expenditure incurred on deceased himself. The learned Tribunal has also not committed any error in deducting the amount of income tax Rs. 6,788 from the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 34,958 and after deducting rs. 15,000 as the expenditure incurred on deceased himself and Rs. 6,788 as the amount of income tax, monthly dependency of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 comes to Rs. 13,170. Taking the dependency in round figure the dependency could be assessed at Rs. 13,000 per month. Thus, the yearly dependency on deceased comes to rs. 1,56,000. On applying multiplier of 11 which has been adopted by learned Tribunal, total loss of dependency comes to rs. 17,16,000. Adding a lump sum amount of Rs. 34,000 as the compensation payable under different conventional heads such as, funeral expenses, loss of company, loss of love and affection, loss to estate, etc. , make the amount of compensation award-able to the appellant Rs. 17,50,000 which according to us is just and proper amount of compensation for which the appellants are entitled. The impugned award deserves to be modified to the above extent. ( 7 ) APPELLANT No. 3, Vijay Kumar Dable is the brother of the deceased. He and his sister Devkibai were not dependent on the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled to get any compensation as loss of dependency. The impugned award deserves to be modified to the above extent. ( 7 ) APPELLANT No. 3, Vijay Kumar Dable is the brother of the deceased. He and his sister Devkibai were not dependent on the deceased, therefore, they are not entitled to get any compensation as loss of dependency. However, they being related to the deceased and being his L. Rs. could receive some compensation for loss of love and affection and other relevant heads. They can share some amount out of the aforesaid awarded amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be appropriate to disburse Rs. 50,000 to Vijay Kumar Dable and Rs. 1,50,000 to Devkibai, the sister of the deceased. The remaining amount shall be equally distributed amongst appellant nos. 1 and 2. 50 per cent of the amount so payable to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 shall be kept deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank of repute for three years. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal succeeds in part. The impugned award is enhanced from Rs. 10,88,500 to Rs. 17,50,000 (Rs. seventeen lakh fifty thousand only), which shall be payable by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Respondents shall bear the costs of the appellants throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified. The amount of award shall be distributed as indicated above in para 7. Appeal allowed. .