JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. (1) This appeal is of compensation in the award passed by the filed by claimants under section 173 of the motor accidents claims tribunal, jaora, motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter re - district ratlam in claim case no. 18 of ferred to as 'the act') assailing inadequacy 2000. (2) The claim petition was filed by the appellants under section 163 - a read with section 166 of the act claiming the amount of compensation of rs. 17,60,000 in respect of death of suresh chandra tyagi, who died in the accident on 30. 11. 1999. According to the claimants tractor bearing no. Mp 14 - h 3515 with trolley bearing no. Mp 14 - 0567 loaded with sand was going to village roopnagar, tehsil jaora, when its left side wheel got punctured. However, the tractor and trolley was standing on the middle of the road without any indicator and without adopting any safety measures specified under the act. The deceased suresh chandra tyagi, who was a. S. I. In police department, while on patrolling duty on mhow - neemuch road was going to jaora by motor cycle. At that time in night while taking side from the vehicle, which was coming from opposite direction collided with the said tractor - trolley of the respondent no. 2, standing in middle of the road negligently and received severe injuries resulting in his death. (3) The insurance company denied the claim of claimants as stated in the claim petition inter alia taking defence that it is the deceased himself, who collided with the trolley, which was standing. However, there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. It was further said that the trolley was loaded with sand, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The tribunal while passing the award recorded a finding that the tractor and trolley was standing in middle of the road without indicators, however, due to negligence of respondent nos. 1 and 2 the accident took place, wherein suresh chandra tyagi, a. S. I. Of the police department died. The tribunal further recorded the finding that violation of the terms and conditions of the policy has not been found proved and the vehicle was validly insured with the respondent no. 3. 1 and 2 the accident took place, wherein suresh chandra tyagi, a. S. I. Of the police department died. The tribunal further recorded the finding that violation of the terms and conditions of the policy has not been found proved and the vehicle was validly insured with the respondent no. 3. While determining the compensation the tribunal observed that deceased was receiving pay rs. 6,616 as per payslip, exh. P9 but because the widow of the deceased employee is getting pension of rs. 3,000 per month and appellant no. 2 has been appointed on compassionate ground and hence the amount of pension and salary from the gross salary of the deceased be treated as loss of earnings, which comes to rs. 1,550 and by applying the multiplier of 13, total loss of earnings was calculated at rs. 2,41,800 and by adding rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and rs. 8,000 for loss to estate and love and affection and rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses; total amount of compensation rs. 2,56,800 was awarded by the tribunal. (4) Mr. Sanjay patwa, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the award passed by the learned member of motor accidents claims tribunal is inadequate and on lower side and required to be enhanced. It is argued that as per payslip, exh. P9 the gross salary of the deceased was rs. 6,616. According to the learned counsel direction issued for deduction of pension received by the widow is not in conformity with law laid down by the hon'ble apex court. Learned counsel contended that assuming the earnings of rs. 6,616 is taken as a loss of income and by applying the multiplier as per the age group and looking to the number of claimants, v4th may be deducted for dependency and the compensation ought to have been awarded accordingly. (5) On the other hand mr. Vinay vijay - vargiya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, has supported the findings recorded by claims tribunal in the impugned award. It is further argued that the accident had occurred with tractor and trolley loaded with the sand. Since it was running in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable. 3, has supported the findings recorded by claims tribunal in the impugned award. It is further argued that the accident had occurred with tractor and trolley loaded with the sand. Since it was running in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable. The said argument cannot be accepted because the fact remains that the findings recorded by the tribunal regarding negligence of the tractor and trolley and the liability of the insurance company has not been assailed by insurance company either by filing an appeal or by cross - objections before this court. Therefore, such argument is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. (6) In view of the above, the amount of compensation to the claimants - appellants may be calculated as per the earnings of the deceased on the date of death and by applying the schedule appended to the act. As per exh. P9 deceased was getting rs. 6,616 as gross salary. After deduction, his carry - home salary was rs. 5,666. Because he was a government employee and the actual salary, which was paid to him after deduction may count as loss of earnings to the members of the family as per the judgments of apex court in the cases of new india assurance co. Ltd. V. Kal - pana, 2007 acj 825 (sc) and national insurance co. Ltd. V. Indira srivastava, 2008 acj 614 (sc). By adding legal deduction in net salary, annual loss of earnings by rounding up comes to rs. 70,000. Looking to the age of the deceased, i. E. , 47 years the multiplier of 13 has rightly been applied by the tribunal. Deducting v3rd from total income, the dependency is worked out to rs. 46,666, which may be rounded up to rs. 47,000. However, if the multiplier of 13 is applied then total loss of earnings comes to rs. 6,11,000. The tribunal while calculating loss of earnings has deducted the amount of pension payable to the appellant no. 1. The finding as recorded is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of helen c. Rebello v. Maharashtra state road trans. Corpn. , 1999 acj 10 (sc) and recently in the case of lal dei v. Himachal road transport corporation, 2008 acj 1107 (sc). 1. The finding as recorded is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of helen c. Rebello v. Maharashtra state road trans. Corpn. , 1999 acj 10 (sc) and recently in the case of lal dei v. Himachal road transport corporation, 2008 acj 1107 (sc). Thus, the findings recorded by the tribunal deducting the family pension while calculating the compensation is illegal. The claims tribunal has further awarded rs. 15,000 under conventional heads. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that the amount under conventional heads may be further enhanced by rs. 10,000, which comes to rs. 25,000. In view of the foregoing discussion, the total amount of compensation payable to appellant due to death of deceased comes to rs. 6,36,000 along with the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of application. (7) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified partly in favour of appellants. The amount of compensation rs. 2,56,800 awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to rs. 6,36,000. However, the enhanced amount of compensation of rs. 3,79,200 shall be payable to appellants along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. Counsel's fee, if certified rs. 2,500. Appeal partly allowed.