ORDER D.R. Deshmukh, J. : - 1. In this appeal by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation, the award dated 23rd August, 1996 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.A.CT.’) in claim case No. 19 of 1995 awarding compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- for accidental death of Nee lam chand Singhvi, aged about 57 years, a Superintending Engineer in Public works Department at Raipur, is under challenge. 2. It is not in dispute in this appeal that on 12.11.1993 while Neelamchand Singhvi was returning from the Railway Station to his home by Maruti Van No. M.P.002/0180, it was hit by a truck No.C.P.S.9754 driven by respondent/non-applicant Ne.1, owned by respondent/non-applicant No.2 and insured by respondent/non-applicant No.3. As a result of the accident Neelamchand Singhvi sustained serious injuris and during hospitalization at Government Hospital, Raipur, was shifted to Nagpur where he died on 28.11.1993. After the death of Neelamchand Singhvi the appellant No.1/claimant i.e. widow is receiving family pension at Rs.3,126/- every month. The appellants/claimants No.2 and 3 are the son and the daughter of the deceased. Another daughter i.e. the appellant/claimant No.4 Ms. Neeti Jain is married. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of truck No.C.P.S.9754 and respondent/non-applicant No.3 is under a statutory liability to pay compensation. 3. The learned M.A.C T. has, on the basis of admission of Ms. Nirmala Singhvi, assessed monthly dependency at Rs.5,000/- per month and recorded finding that on the date of accident the deceased was aged 57 years i.e. in the age group of 55 to 60 years, and therefore, applied multiplier of 8 on the basis of second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However on the basis of admission by Smt. Nirmala Singhvi that she was receiving Rs.3,126/- per month as family pension and had also received 75,000/- towards provident fund, Rs.2,00,000/- towards gratuity and Rs.20,000/- from the Association, the M.A.C.T. reduced the loss of dependency to Rs.1 ,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 8, as provided under second schedule, assessed loss of dependency at Rs,96,000/- (Rs.1,000/- x 12 x 8). Despite non-production of proof of expenses incurred on conveyance from Raipur to Nagpur for hospitaliz4tion and treatment during hospitalization and also the statement of Nitin Singhvi that some of the expenses incurred on treatment were reimbursed, the learned M.A.C.T. awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance charges for taking Neelamchand Singhvi to Nagpur and for expenses in treatment. Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for loss of consortium to the appellant/claimant No.1. Nothing was awarded towards loss of estate and loss of love and affection to the three children. The learned M.A,C.T. did not award any amount towards funeral expenses on the ground that even if Neelamchand Singhvi had died a natural death, such expenses would have been incurred. In this manner, the learned M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,000/- as compensation and disentitled the appellants No. 2 & 4 i.e. the son and the married daughter of the deceased from receiving any part thereof on the ground that while the son was an earning member, the daughter had already got married. 4. Miss Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants urged that the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is niggardly low and contended that the learned M.A.C.T. ought not to have taken into consideration the amount of family pension while reducing the loss of dependency to Rs.1,000/- because even if Neelamchand Singhvi had died a natural death, such pension would have been received by the family Rbliance was placed on Smt. Fulmati Bai and others Vs. Panchamsingh and others1. It was next contended that the accident had occurred on 12.11.1993 whereas the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force w.e.f. 14.11.94. Placing reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others2 and V.S. Gowdar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited3, a full Bench decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court, it was urged that the correct multiplier to be applied for age 57 years is 9. 1t was also urged that the Tribunal erred in holding that the married son and daughter who were not the dependents of the deceased were not entitled to compensation. They being legal representatives under section 166 of the Act could not be denied compensation. Reliance was placed on Smt. Manjuri Bera' Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.4 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another5. 5. They being legal representatives under section 166 of the Act could not be denied compensation. Reliance was placed on Smt. Manjuri Bera' Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.4 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another5. 5. On the other hand, Shri P. R. Patankar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued ill support of the amount awarded. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we have perused the record. In this appeal, it is not disputed that Neelamdhand Singhvi was Superintending Engineer in Bridge Corporation, Public Works Department and was aged about 57 years, on the date of accident, which had occurred on 12.l1.1993.lt is also not in dispute that he died on 28.11.1993. The second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was introduced w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Miss Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants urged that relying upon the principles laid down in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others6, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court drew up the appropriate multiplier for different age groups in a tabular form wherein the multiplier 9 is applicable for age group of 53-57 years in case of accidents occurred prior to 14.11.1994 and submitted that this was further relied in V.S. Gowder s case3 (supra). Under the second schedule introduced from 14.11.1994, the correct multiplier applicable for age group of 55-60 years is 8. Smt. Nirmala Singhvi did not depose the age of the deceased on the date of the accident. Her son Dr. S.K.Choubey A.W.2 also remained silent on this point. A perusal of the record shows that no documentary proof whatsoever was filed by the claimants on this count. Even in the application for compensation, although the age of Neelamchand Singhvi was shown to be approximately 57 years, yet it was further stated that only 8 months were left for his retirement. The M.A.C.T. has, therefore, rightly assessed the age of the deceased as more than 57 years on the date of accident. Therefore, since the deceased had completed 57 years and four months, the Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier 8 instead of multiplier 9. In the tabular form drawn in Gulam Khader and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another7, multiplier 9 was applicable only to the age group of 53 to 57 years. Therefore, since the deceased had completed 57 years and four months, the Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier 8 instead of multiplier 9. In the tabular form drawn in Gulam Khader and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another7, multiplier 9 was applicable only to the age group of 53 to 57 years. Since the deceased was more than 57 years, we are of the considered opinion that the M.A.C.T. committed no error in applying the multiplier of 8. 7. No documentary proof of the salary drawn by Neelamchand Singhvi was produced and no such fact was pleaded by the appellants/claimants in their application under Section 166 of the Act. The M.A.C.T. has accepted the unrebutted testimony of Smt. Nirmala Singhvi that she used to receive a sum of Rs.5,000/- every month from her husband for expenses towards family. Taking into consideration the post held by Neelamchand Sioghvi such inference drawn by the M.A.C.T. is justified. The M.A.C.T. has thus rightly held that the loss of monthly dependency was Rs.5,000/-. 8. The M.A.C.T. took this fact into consideration that Smt. Nirmala Singhvi was receiving family pension of Rs.3,126/- every month and had also received a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards provident fund, Rs.2,00,000/- towards gratuity and Rs.20,000/- from the Association. However, the approach of the Tribunal in deducting the aforesaid sums from the monthly dependency of Rs. 5,000/- was wholly incorrect. In Smt. Fulmati Bai and others Vs. Panchamsingh and others1 a similar question arose before the Apex Court for consideration. The Apex Court observed as follows : “10. We have also examined the matter. Simply because the widow of the deceased is entitled to family pension or other perquisites on account of the death of her husband, has no co-relation with the dependency which has to be worked out under the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the service conditions, even otherwise also, in normal course, if a husband dies a natural death, then also family pension is paid to the deceased's dependents. Today also the perquisites which are being paid to the dependents of the deceased even while serving in the Institutions, are social measures and they have nothing to do with the death of the deceased while dying a natural death or by accident. Today also the perquisites which are being paid to the dependents of the deceased even while serving in the Institutions, are social measures and they have nothing to do with the death of the deceased while dying a natural death or by accident. Therefore, on account of the death of the deceased in an accident, such amount cannot be taken into consideration, because even otherwise also in normal course, in the event of natural death, the family members of the deceased are entitled to that benefit. Therefore, that cannot be taken into consideration for working out the dependency of the family members.” 9. It is thus clear that neither the amount of Rs.3,500/- which the widow of the deceased was getting as family pension could be deducted from the monthly dependency of Rs.5,000/- nor the amount of gratuity, provident fund and contribution by the Association could be taken into consideration for reducing the monthly dependency. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the M.A.C.T. grossly erred in determining the loss of monthly dependency at a niggardly low amount of Rs.1,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we take the loss of monthly dependency at Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering the post held by Neelamchand Singhvi, we are of the considered opinion that even after his retirement he would have continued to provide a minimum amount of Rs.5,000/- every month to his widow. We, therefore, determine loss of dependency at Rs.5,000/- and assess total loss of dependency at Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rs. 5000 x 12 x 8). 10. Nothing was awarded by the M.A.C.T. under conventional heads. Except awarding loss of consortium at Rs. 15,000/-, nothing was awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The approach of the M.A.C.T. that even in case of natural death expenses towards funeral would have been incurred, and therefore, it could not be taken into consideration while awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Act is ridiculous. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,0001- towards loss of estate. 11. Ms. Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,0001- towards loss of estate. 11. Ms. Madhu Modi, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.4, wherein it was held that a married daughter of the deceased though not dependent on the deceased is also entitled to compensation as she falls under the category of legal representative under Section 166 of the Act. However, in that case, the Apex Court was considering the question of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. In our considered opinion a married daughter and a married son who are not dependent on the deceased are also entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection. We award a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to the appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4. In this manner, we assess the total compensation as under : (a) Loss of dependency : Rs.4,80,000/- (b) Loss of estate : Rs.25,000/- (c) Loss of consortium (as awarded by the M.A.C.T.) : Rs.15,000/- (d) Loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each to the appellants/claimants No.2 t04 : Rs.15,000/- (e) Conveyance and treatment expenses incurred by the widow (as awarded by the M.A.C.T.) : Rs.20,000/- (f) Funeral expenses : Rs.5,000/- Total : Rs.5,60,000/- 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Tile award passed by the M.A.C.T. is modified and compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- is awarded to the appellants/claimants. After adjusting the amount already paid, the respondent/insurer shall deposit the remaining compensation with the M.A.C.T. within two months from today, failing which, the Insurance Company shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization. Appeal Allowed.