Judgment Arali Nagaraj, J. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein respectively being claimants 1 and 2 in MVC 435/04 have sought for enhancement of compensation awarded under the impugned Judgment and Award dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Prl.District Judge and MACT, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. We have heard the arguments of Sri.M.Moinuddin, Learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Veeresh B.Patil, Learned Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company. The Learned Counsel for third respondent-claimant is not present. Therefore, his arguments are taken as heard. We have also perused the impugned Judgment and Award and also the entire material on record. 3. Since the second respondent-Insurer has not filed any appeal aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award, the findings of the Tribunal as to the occurrence of the accident on 2.1.2004 at about 11.15 P.M. on MSK Mill Road, Gulbarga as a result of rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.KA 32 M 3174 insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, sustaining the fatal injuries by the deceased Ravikumar B.Gowda Hawaldar who was the husband and father of the first and second appellant-claimants respectively and son of third respondent-Shivamma and death of the deceased as a result of the said accident on 29.2.2004; the liability of second respondent Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants have all remained totally unchallenged. Therefore, the only point that arises for our determination in this appeal is, “Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned Judgment and Award requires to be enhanced and if so, to what extent.?” Our finding on this point is in the “affirmative’ holding that the appellant-claimants 1 and 2 and also third respondent Smt.Shivamma shall be together entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,46,400/- as against Rs.8,22,825/- awarded by the Tribunal for the following reasons; 4. The Learned Counsel for the appellants, placing strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., vs. INDIRA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS 1 (2008) ACC 162 (SC) strongly contended that the Tribunal committed serious error in estimating the loss of dependency by taking only the basic pay (Rs. The Learned Counsel for the appellants, placing strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., vs. INDIRA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS 1 (2008) ACC 162 (SC) strongly contended that the Tribunal committed serious error in estimating the loss of dependency by taking only the basic pay (Rs. 3,890/-,) Dearness Allowance of Rs.2,140/- and HRA of Rs.111/- the total of which comes to Rs.6,141/- as the monthly salary of the deceased instead of taking the gross salary of Rs.10,206/- less the statutory deductions such as Income Tax etc., as found in Ex.P13 the salary certificate. He further submitted that the Tribunal also committed error in not considering the prospects of future promotion, increments, periodical wage revision which the deceased, who was only about 21 years, could have got during his entire service in estimating the ‘loss of dependency’. He also submitted that, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only meager amount of Rs.5,000/-towards consortium in favour of the first appellant-claimant wife and Rs.3,000/- only towards funeral and other expenses and also in not awarding the cost of medicines as found in various bills under Ex.P15. 5. As against the above contentions of the Learned Counsel for the appellant claimants, Sri Veeresh B. Patil, Learned Counsel for second respondent-Insurer submitted that since the deceased was a driver, he had no chance of any promotion to any higher post; the Tribunal has rightly taken said amount of Rs.6,141/- as the monthly income of the deceased; the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is quite reasonable and as such impugned Judgment and Award does not call for any interference in this appeal. 6. In the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. INDIRA SRIVASTAVA referred to supra, which is relied upon the by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed at Paragraph Nos. 13,14 and 21 as under: Para.13. The question came for consideration before a Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the MANAGER, ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE Co., LTD. vs. PADMAVATHY & ORS., CMA No. 114 of 2006 decided on 29.1.2007 wherein it was held: “Income tax, Professional tax which are deducted from the salaried person goes to the offers of the Government under specific head and there is no return. vs. PADMAVATHY & ORS., CMA No. 114 of 2006 decided on 29.1.2007 wherein it was held: “Income tax, Professional tax which are deducted from the salaried person goes to the offers of the Government under specific head and there is no return. Whereas, the General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, L.I.C., Contribution are amounts paid specific heads and the contribution is always repayable to an employee at the time of voluntary retirement, death or for any other reason. Such contributions made by the salaried person are deferred payments and they are savings. The Supreme Court as well s various High Court have held that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and that the deferred payments made to the employee are contractual. Courts have held that there cannot be any deductions in the statutory compensation, if the Legal Representative are entitled to lumpsum payment under the contractual liability. If the contributions made by the employee which are otherwise savings from the salary are deducted from the gross income and only the net income is taken for computing the dependency compensation, then the Legal Representatives of the victim would lose considerable portion of the income. In view of the settled proposition of law, I am of the view, the “Tribunal can make only statutory deductions such as income tax and professional tax and any other contribution, which is not repayable by the employer from the salary of the deceased person while determining the monthly income for computing the dependency compensation. Any contribution made by the employee during his life-time, form part of the salary and they should be included in the monthly income, while computing the dependency compensation.” Para.14. Similar view was expressed by a Learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Narayanamma & Ors., Vs. Secretary To Government Of India, Ministry Of Telecommunications And Ors., II (2002) ACC 582 holding: In this background, now we will examine the present deductions made by the Tribunal from the salary of the deceased in fixing the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family. The Tribunal has not even taken proper care while deducting the amounts from the salary of the deceased, at least the very nature of deductions from the salary of the deceased. The Tribunal has not even taken proper care while deducting the amounts from the salary of the deceased, at least the very nature of deductions from the salary of the deceased. My view is that the deductions made by the Tribunal from the salary such as recovery of housing loan, vehicle loan, festival advance and other deductions, if any, to the benefit of the estate of the deceased cannot be deducted while computing he net monthly earnings of the deceased. These advances or loans are part of his salary. So far as House Rent Allowance is concerned, it is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased during his tenure, but for his untimely death the claimants are deprived of such benefit which they would have enjoyed, if the deceased is alive. On the other hand, allowances, like Travelling Allowance, allowance for news-papers/ periodicals, telephone, servant, club-fee, car maintenance etc., by virtue of his vocation need not be included in the salary while computing the net earnings of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was getting Rs. 1,401/-as net income every month is unsustainable as the deductions made towards vehicle loan and other deductions were also taken into consideration while fixing the monthly income of the deceased. The above finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the principle of ‘just compensation’ enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Helen’s case (supra). The Supreme Court in CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE Co. Vs. NIRMALADEVI AND ORS., 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) held that determination of quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since law values life and limb in a free country ‘in generous scales’. Para. 21. We may notice that in T.N. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. S. RAJAPRIYA & ORS., IV (2005) SLT 42 this Court was held: “8. Vs. NIRMALADEVI AND ORS., 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) held that determination of quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since law values life and limb in a free country ‘in generous scales’. Para. 21. We may notice that in T.N. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. S. RAJAPRIYA & ORS., IV (2005) SLT 42 this Court was held: “8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. 9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years’ purchase. 10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis “and it that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master” since there are so often many imponderables. In every case “it is the overall picture that matters”, and the Court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.” 7. Ex.P13, the salary certificate discloses that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.10,206/- and his net salary was Rs.8,807/- p.m. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, while estimating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has considered only Rs.6,141/- per month which is inclusive of basic pay of Rs.3,890/- DA of Rs.2,140/-, HRA of Rs.111/-. Ex.P13, the salary certificate discloses that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.10,206/- and his net salary was Rs.8,807/- p.m. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, while estimating the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has considered only Rs.6,141/- per month which is inclusive of basic pay of Rs.3,890/- DA of Rs.2,140/-, HRA of Rs.111/-. It has not considered over time salary of Rs.3,099/-, washing allowance of Rs.292/- and Repast of Rs.20/- Bhatta of Rs.165/- and other allowance of Rs.378/- the total of which comes to Rs.3,954/-. 8. Following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said decision, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed error in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,141/- only from out of the gross salary of Rs.10,206/- and net salary of Rs.8,807/- excluding the deductions which should not have been excluded. The Tribunal ought to have added to the net monthly salary of Rs.8,807/- the deductions made from the gross salary viz., Rs.502/- towards family pension scheme, Rs.221/-towards contribution to provident fund, Rs.110/- towards PF Advance and Rs.100/- towards festival advance. If these deductions, the total of which comes to Rs.1,083/- is added to the net salary of Rs.8,807/-, the total comes to Rs.9,740/- Further, the Tribunal ought to have added to this amount a sum of Rs. 221/- being the contribution by the employer to the Provident Fund equal to the contribution of the deceased. If this is added to the said amount of Rs.9,740/- the further total comes to Rs.9,961/-. The Tribunal was justified in not considering Rs.3,264/- which is inclusive of Rs.3,099/- which the deceased was paid as overtime salary and Rs.165/- which he was getting towards Bhatta. But, it was not justified in not considering Rs.670/- being the total of washing allowance of Rs.292/-, and ‘other allowances’ of Rs.378/-. If this amount of Rs.670/- is added to, and the said amount of Rs.3,264/-is deducted from, Rs.9,961/- the net monthly income which the Tribunal ought to have considered in estimating loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,367=00 (Rs.9,961 + Rs. 670=00 – Rs.3,264.00 = Rs.7,367.00). This entire calculation may be summarized as under: Net monthly salary of the deceased as per Ex.P.13, Salary Certificate ………………………………………….Rs.8,807=00 Add deductions…………………………………………………………….Rs. 933=00 (i) Towards Family Pension Scheme…………………..Rs. 502=00 (ii) Towards Provident Fund…………………………………Rs. 221=00 (iii) Towards P.F. Advance……………………………………Rs. 110=00 (iv) Towards Festival Advance……………………………..Rs. 670=00 – Rs.3,264.00 = Rs.7,367.00). This entire calculation may be summarized as under: Net monthly salary of the deceased as per Ex.P.13, Salary Certificate ………………………………………….Rs.8,807=00 Add deductions…………………………………………………………….Rs. 933=00 (i) Towards Family Pension Scheme…………………..Rs. 502=00 (ii) Towards Provident Fund…………………………………Rs. 221=00 (iii) Towards P.F. Advance……………………………………Rs. 110=00 (iv) Towards Festival Advance……………………………..Rs. 100=00 Total Rs.933=00 Rs. 9,740=00 Add the allowances…………………………………………………………………… Rs. 670=00 (a) Washing Allowance………………………………….Rs. 292=00 _ (b) Other allowance……………………………………….Rs. 378=00 Total Rs. 670=00 Rs. 10,410=00 Add contribution of employer towards P.F. ………………………….. Rs. 221=00 ____________ Total Rs. 10,631=00 Deduct overtime salary & Bhatta………………………………………… Rs. 3,264=00 (i) Overtime Salary ………………………………………………………………. Rs. 3,099=00 (ii) Bhatta……………………………………………………………………………….. Rs. 165=00 Total Rs. 3,264=00 Net monthly ___________ Income to be taken……………………………….. Rs. 7,367=00 9. Further, the Tribunal has not considered the prospects of promotion of the deceased as the Senior Driver and also periodical revision of wages, regular annual increments which he would have earned throughout his remaining service which was about 21 years. We do not have the figure of the salary which the deceased would have earned as on the date of his superannuation. Therefore, we have only to make a guess work as to what would have been the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of superannuation. Therefore, we re of the considered view that, taking into consideration the periodical increments, wage revision, bonus chances of promotion, etc., also the statutory deductions towards Professional Tax, Income Tax, etc., the monthly income of the deceased could be taken for estimating the loss of dependency to his family at Rs.9,000/- p.m., as against Rs.7,367/-as calculated by us supra and also as against Rs.6,141/- taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. 10. If Rs.9,000/- is taken as monthly income of the deceased and 1/3rd of it is deducted towards his personal expenses, his contribution to the family consisting of the appellants and third respondent would be Rs.6,000/- per month or Rs.72,000/- per annum. It is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 37 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, as laid down by this Court in GULAM KHADER’S CASE the proper multiplier to be adopted would be ‘15’. It is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 37 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, as laid down by this Court in GULAM KHADER’S CASE the proper multiplier to be adopted would be ‘15’. But, in view of the fact that the deceased was a salaried person, he would have earned full salary of Rs.9,000/-p.m., till the date of his superannuation and thereafter his income by way of pension would have been reduced by 50% of his last drawn salary as on the date of superannuation. Therefore, we have to adopt split multipliers by taking the multiplier ‘11’ in respect of the period during which he would have earned his full salary of Rs.9,000/-p.m., or Rs.72,000/- per annum and multiplier ‘4’ in respect the period after attaining his superannuation by taking his pension @ Rs.4,500/- p.m., or Rs.54,000/-per annum. Thus, the total loss of dependency to the family of the deceased comes to Rs.10,08,000/- (Rs.72,000x11 (multiplier) + Rs.54,000 x 4 (multiplier) as against Rs.6,72,000/-awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned Judgment. 11. Having regard to the fact that first appellant wife was aged about 35 years as on the date of the claim petition, we enhance the amount of compensation under ‘loss of consortium’ from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Similarly, we hereby enhance the amount of compensation awarded under the head ‘Funeral Expenses’ from Rs,3,000/-to Rs.10,000/- which shall be inclusive of expenses towards transportation of dead body and all other incidental expenses. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation to appellant No.2, the son of the deceased, towards ‘loss of love and affection’. Therefore, we hereby award a sum of Rs.10,000/- in his favour under this head. 12. On perusal of the impugned Judgment it could be seen that though the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,825/- towards hospital charges as part of the expenses towards medical treatment given to the deceased from the date of accident till he died, it has not awarded any amount towards actual cost of medicines as claimed by the claimant under the Bills at Ex.P15 series. In this regard, the Tribunal has observed at Para. 13 of its Judgment that since several bills are of the same date, it is highly improbable that on single day the patient might have been administered with that much of medicines as found therein worth more than Rs.1,000/- per day. 13. In this regard, the Tribunal has observed at Para. 13 of its Judgment that since several bills are of the same date, it is highly improbable that on single day the patient might have been administered with that much of medicines as found therein worth more than Rs.1,000/- per day. 13. In view of the above finding of the Tribunal, we directed the Learned Counsel for the appellants and 2nd respondent-Insurer to scrutinize and verify each of the bills under Ex.P15 with reference to the respective prescriptions issued by the Doctor. Accordingly, they scrutinized the bills with reference to the prescriptions corresponding to the date of bill and then, by filing a memo, stated that on verification of the bills and prescriptions it is found that medicines purchased under some of the bills totally worth only Rs.98,600/- are found tallying with the prescriptions, and others do not, Thus, the medicines worth only Rs.98,600/- could have been administered to the deceased while he was treated as in-patient during the said period, and the claimants are entitled to the same. Therefore, we hereby award in their favour this sum of Rs.98,600/- towards cost of medicines. 14. On being directed by us, Sri Veeresh B.Patil, the Learned Counsel representing the second respondent-insurer and Sri. Moinuddin, the Learned Counsel representing the appellants have been fair enough to verify each of the medical bills with reference to the prescriptions corresponding the date of bill. They have taken pains in scrutinizing each of the bills and prescriptions and in arriving at the actual amount that must have been spent by the family of the deceased towards purchase of the and thus assisted this Court in arriving at the conclusion as to the exact amount to which the family of the deceased is entitled, to, towards cost of medicines. Had they not done so, with all their fairness, there could be no alternative for us but to remand the matter to the Tribunal for that purpose in which event there would have been further delay in disposal of the matter. Therefore, we place on record our appreciation of the work done by the said Learned Counsel for the parties. 15. Thus the total amount of compensation which the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent No. 3 are together entitled to comes to Rs.11,46,600/- as against Rs.8,22,825/- awarded by the Tribunal in its impugned Judgment and Award. Therefore, we place on record our appreciation of the work done by the said Learned Counsel for the parties. 15. Thus the total amount of compensation which the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent No. 3 are together entitled to comes to Rs.11,46,600/- as against Rs.8,22,825/- awarded by the Tribunal in its impugned Judgment and Award. The claimants are also entitled to the interest on the enhanced portion of it at the same rate of 6% per annum, s awarded by the Tribunal. 16. As to apportionment of the amount of compensation enhanced in this appeal, the Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the first appellant, being the wife of the deceased, has spent heavy amounts towards the cost of treatment to the deceased and the second appellant son aged about 15 years as on the date of petition has to prosecute his further studies and therefore 50% and 30% of the enhanced amount of compensation shall ordered to be paid to the appellants 1 and 2 respectively and the balance of 20% of it may be ordered to be paid to the third respondent, the mother of the deceased who was aged about 65 years as on the said date. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the above submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellants deserves acceptance. Third respondent mother and also both the appellants, being Class-I heirs of the deceased, have been given by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment equal shares in the compensation and they have withdrawn their respective shares in the compensation amount which has been deposited in the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not feel it reasonable to disturb the same. However, having regard to above submissions of the Learned Counsel for the appellants, we feel that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 shall get respectively 50% and 30% of the enhanced amount of compensation and the 3rd respondent mother shall get 20% of it along with proportionate interest on their respective shares. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the point raised for our determination in the ‘affirmative’ and pass the following, ORDER The present appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs. The amount of compensation awarded in favour of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 together is hereby enhanced from Rs.8,22,825/- to Rs. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the point raised for our determination in the ‘affirmative’ and pass the following, ORDER The present appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs. The amount of compensation awarded in favour of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 together is hereby enhanced from Rs.8,22,825/- to Rs. 11,46,600/- with interest thereon at the same rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment as awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned Judgment. Further, we direct that 50% of the enhanced compensation amount shall be paid to Appellant No. 1 wife and 30% thereof to appellant No.2 son and remaining 20% thereof to Respondent No.3, mother of the deceased with proportionate interest thereon. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the depositing, into Fixed Deposit Accounts, of various portions of the respective shares in the compensation payable to the appellants and third respondent is left undisturbed and same shall be applied as to depositing of the portions of the respective shares in the enhanced compensation payable to appellants and 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company shall deposit into the Tribunal, the enhanced amount of compensation with interest thereon as aforesaid within four weeks from the date of drawing up of the modified award. The award shall be modified in terms of this judgment.