Judgment ( 1. ) - This appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award dated 21. 4. 2005, passed by the sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 60 of 2004 for enhancement of compensation. ( 2. ) DECEASED Sunil Agrawal was going to paan shop on 1. 7. 2004 at around 1. 30 p. m. when he was hit by a bus bearing registration No. MP 07-F 1488. Deceased died on the spot; report of the incident was lodged at the police station and an offence was also registered against the driver of the bus. Subsequently, the appellants filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal claiming the total compensation of rs. 63,30,000. Appellants pleaded that they are wife and daughter of the deceased and deceased had been working as Assistant Engineer in Electricity Department and he had been receiving monthly salary of rs. 23,000, after promotion he could get further enhancement of salary of Rs. 3,000. Vehicle was driven rashly and negligently hence appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 63,30,000. ( 3. ) BEFORE the Claims Tribunal wife of the deceased examined herself and also examined Naval Singh Rana and Dinesh sharma, accountant of M. P. State Electricity Board in support of the case. On the basis of above evidence Claims Tribunal held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It was insured at the relevant time with respondent No. 3 and awarded total compensation of Rs. 17,26,000. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has submitted that proper compensation has not been awarded. Income of the deceased has not been assessed properly by the Tribunal and proper multiplier has not been applied. Contrary to this, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has submitted that proper compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and award does not call for any interference. ( 5. ) ADMITTED facts of the case are that sunil Agrawal died on 1. 7. 2004 in an accident by bus bearing registration No. MP 07-F 1488. Findings of the Tribunal are that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. It was insured with respondent no. 3. ( 5. ) ADMITTED facts of the case are that sunil Agrawal died on 1. 7. 2004 in an accident by bus bearing registration No. MP 07-F 1488. Findings of the Tribunal are that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. It was insured with respondent no. 3. With regard to monthly income of the deceased, the appellants examined one dinesh Sharma before the Claims Tribunal who had been working as senior accountant in the office of Electricity Board at the relevant time. He specifically stated that deceased had been working as Assistant engineer and he was also given higher pay scale accordingly with effect from 1. 7. 2004. Deceased had been drawing gross salary of Rs. 23,228. The certificate to this effect has also been filed as Exh. P11. Hence, in my opinion, it is clear from the evidence that the pay of the deceased was Rs. 23,228 at the relevant time on the following heads: ( 6. ) AS per the judgment of Honble Apex court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava, 2008 ACJ 614 (SC), net income would ordinarily mean gross income minus the statutory deductions and it is also evident in the present case that the court has not taken into consideration rise in income of the deceased by way of promotion or otherwise. Hence, deceased earnings of Rs. 23,228 can be taken into consideration. Consequently, annual income of the deceased comes to rs. 2,78,736 and after deducting 1/3rd, annual dependency it comes to Rs. 1,85,824. ( 7. ) AS per the office record and evidence of the accountant the date of birth of the deceased was 24. 1. 1963, hence at the relevant time deceased was aged about 41 years. As per the Second Schedule to motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier for 42-45 years of age is 15, however, looking to the higher income of the deceased, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to apply the multiplier of 14 as applied by the Tribunal. ( 8. ) HONble Supreme Court in Managing director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. v. Sripriya, 2007 ACJ 1076 (SC), has held that in higher income lower multiplier can be applied, hence multiplier of 14 would be just and proper. After applying the above multiplier total loss of income comes to near about Rs. 26,00,000. ( 8. ) HONble Supreme Court in Managing director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. v. Sripriya, 2007 ACJ 1076 (SC), has held that in higher income lower multiplier can be applied, hence multiplier of 14 would be just and proper. After applying the above multiplier total loss of income comes to near about Rs. 26,00,000. Appellant will also be entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and loss of affection. Hence, in my opinion appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 26,15,000. Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 17,26,000 to the appellant, hence appellant will get enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 8,89,000. Consequently, appeal of the appellant is allowed to the extent that the appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of rs. 8,89,000 (rupees eight lakh eighty-nine thousand ). Enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent from the date of filing of the application before the Claims Tribunal. Rest of the terms and conditions will be as per the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.