JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants, who have lost their son in an accident, have filed the present appeal for enhancement. They have challenged the award dated 17.7.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short, the learned Tribunal'). 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 7.4.1994, the appellant's son, Manoj Kumar was travelling with his parents in a roadways bus, bearing registration No. RJ-25-P-0207. Suddenly, the driver of the bus lost control over the bus and collided with a truck, bearing registration No. RJ-25-G-0431. Resultantly, the appellant's son, Manoj Kumar, died. As many persons were injured in the said accident, a number of claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their case, eight witnesses were examined and a large number of documents were submitted. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,16,000/- to the appellants. Being aggrieved from the said award, hence this appeal. 3. Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised only a single contention that deceased was a fourth class Government employee. He was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. The learned Tribunal has not doubled his income in order to calculate the "loss of dependency". Moreover, his income has been reduced to Rs. 1,000/- by the learned Tribunal. 4. On the other hand Mr. O.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contended that the compensation awarded to the appellants is more than just and reasonable. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned award. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties, have perused the impugned award and examined the record, which has been placed before this Court. 6. It is not in dispute that Manoj Kumar, the deceased, was twenty years old at the time of his death and he was a permanent Government employee and he was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. Considering the fact that the deceased was permanent Government employee, his salary would have increased with the passage of time. 6. It is not in dispute that Manoj Kumar, the deceased, was twenty years old at the time of his death and he was a permanent Government employee and he was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. Considering the fact that the deceased was permanent Government employee, his salary would have increased with the passage of time. In the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 176 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where a deceased is working on a permanent Government job, considering his future prospect, the income should be doubled, in order to calculated the "loss of dependency". Despite the fact that the said judgment was pronounced in the 1993, the said principle has been ignored by the learned Tribunal while pronouncing the impugned award. 7. In view of the above judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 3,600/- per month. In order to calculate the "loss of dependency" only one-third (Rs. 1,200/-) of the said income should be deducted, as the amount the deceased would have spent upon himself. Therefore, the "loss of dependency" should be calculated as Rs. 2,400/- x 12 x 13 = Rs. 3,74,400/-. 8. In the result this appeal is allowed and the award dated 17.7.1997 is modified as under : (a) The compensation should be calculated as Rs. 2,400/- x 12 x 13 = Rs. 3,74,400/-. (b) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 3,74,400/- after deducting the amount already disbursed to the appellant. It is, further, directed to pay remaining enhanced amount alongwith interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 5.7.1994 till the date of realization. (c) The learned Tribunal is directed to ensure that the appellants are granted the enhanced compensation amount alongwith interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed. *******