ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimant as against award dated 8. 3. 2001 passed by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Shahdol in Claim Case no. 2 of 2000. Prayer has been made to enhance the compensation. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that deceased was servant in Central Government serving as watchman in South Eastern Railway. His age was 49 years. Deceased Babulal was dashed by Hero Puch moped (MP 18-B 9449)driven by Lazim Khan. Babulal sustained injuries. He was taken to District hospital, Shahdol, from where he was referred to Bhilai. While he was going to bhilai for treatment, he died on 11. 9. 1999 at Anooppur Railway Station. Deceased was going on cycle at the time of accident. Claimant is the widow of the deceased. Deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 7,655 per month. Compensation of Rs. 18,82,300 was claimed. The moped was owned by gulam Moinuddin and was insured with new India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 3 ) THE owner and driver of Hero Puch moped in their written statement contended that deceased himself was negligent. He fell down from the cycle, sustained head injury and died. Lazim Khan was not negligent in any manner. ( 4 ) THE insurer in the written statement also took a plea that deceased himself was negligent. Lazim Khan was not having valid and effective driving licence. Claimant is not married wife of the deceased as such claim petition be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that the claimant is the married wife of the deceased. Lazim Khan was negligent in driving the Hero Puch moped and owing to his rash and negligent driving, Babulal sustained injury and died. The income of the deceased has been taken at the basic salary of Rs. 3,475, thus compensation of rs. 2,20,000 has been awarded along with the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. In case the amount was not paid within 2 months, same was to carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. ( 6 ) DISSATISFIED with the award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. ( 7 ) MR. Sanjeev Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as apparent from pay slip, Exh. ( 6 ) DISSATISFIED with the award, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. ( 7 ) MR. Sanjeev Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as apparent from pay slip, Exh. P7, gross pay of Rs. 7,655 ought to have been taken for consideration for determination of compensation. The age of the deceased was 49 years, thus multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied. He has also referred to post-mortem in which age has been recorded as 50 years, thus he has submitted that suitable compensation be awarded considering the aforesaid facts. ( 8 ) MR. Sudeep Deb, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Virendra verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 have submitted that in the pay slip overtime allowance of Rs. 1,922 has been mentioned. Overtime allowance may vary from month to month depending upon the work done in overtime. There were arrears of D. A. also Rs. 303, which were added, thus salary which has been taken by the claims Tribunal for determination of compensation, is proper. Case for enhancement of compensation, is not made out. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the only question which has been raised is about quantum of compensation, we find that age of the deceased was 49-50 years. He was in the employment of South Eastern railway in the capacity of watchman, his gross emoluments as apparent from salary certificate, Exh. P7, was thus: Pay Rs . 3,475 D. A. Rs . 1,286 O. T. Allowance Rs . 1,922 N. D. Allowance Rs . 351 N. H' day Allowance Rs . 318 Arrear-DA Rs . 303 ( 10 ) WE have excluded arrears of D. A. Rs. 303 and N. D. allowance Rs. 351 and taken overtime allowance on an average at rs. 1,000 per month instead of Rs. 1,922 drawn for the relevant month as that may vary depending upon the overall overtime duty performed. Thus the basic pay was of rs. 3,475, D. A. Rs. 1,286, which forms a part of salary, thus we take the salary for the purpose of computation of compensation of rs. 3,475 + Rs. 1,286 + Rs. 1,000 + Rs. 318 = Rs. Thus the basic pay was of rs. 3,475, D. A. Rs. 1,286, which forms a part of salary, thus we take the salary for the purpose of computation of compensation of rs. 3,475 + Rs. 1,286 + Rs. 1,000 + Rs. 318 = Rs. 6,079, 1/3rd deduction has to be made towards self expenditure, which the deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, thus loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs. 4,053 and annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,053 x 12 = Rs. 48,636, multiplier of 13 is applicable at the age of 49-50 years, which was the age of the deceased, we apply the multiplier of 13, thus compensation comes to rs. 48,636 x 13 = Rs. 6,32,268. In addition claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate, Rs. 5,000 for loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to rs. 6,46,768. The compensation enhanced by us to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. We set aside the direction issued by the Claims Tribunal of payment of interest at the rate of 10 per cent in case amount was not paid within the time specified by the court. No such direction was required, same is hereby set aside. ( 11 ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal allowed. .