ORDER G.S. Solanki, J. 1. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid three appeals, as they arise out of common award dated 17.7.2009 passed by Fifth Additional Member Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar in Claim Case No. 44/2009 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,73,500/-on account of death of Dhanraj Singh, who died in a motor accident. 2. M.A. No. 3255/2009 has been filed by New India Assurance company challenging the liability to pay the compensation more than 50% of the award despite the fact that the Tribunal itself has held that accident occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles in question, M.A. No. 3430/2009 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and M.A. No. 3705/2009 has been filed by the Appellant/driver for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of injuries sustained in the accident. 3. The facts are being noticed from M.A. No. 3430/2009. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2007 when deceased Dhanraj Singh along with S.K. Singhai and R.R. Choudhary were travelling in a jeep MP15-A-3091 driven by Respondent No. 4, they met with an accident due to head-on collision with Truck No. MP15D-1929, driven by Respondent No. 1. All the aforesaid three persons were taken to the hospital, where Dhanraj Singh was declared as brought dead, while other two persons sustained severe injuries. Report was lodged in Police Station Gorjhamar. 5. Claimant No. 1 is the widow, claimants No. 2 to 5 are the children and claimants No. 6 and 7 are mother and sister of deceased Dhanraj Singh. According to the claimants, deceased was 45 years of age at the time of accident and was posted as Asst. Engineer in the office of PHE. He was getting the salary of Rs. 17,199/- per month. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal has found that deceased was 48 years of age at the time of accident. His income has been assessed at Rs. 15,039/-per month and by applying the multiplier of 13, total compensation of Rs. 15,64,000/-has been awarded inclusive of a sum of Rs. 2000/-for funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/-for love and affection and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in taking into consideration the net salary of the deceased in place of gross salary i.e. Rs. 15,64,000/-has been awarded inclusive of a sum of Rs. 2000/-for funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/-for love and affection and Rs. 2,500/- for loss of estate. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in taking into consideration the net salary of the deceased in place of gross salary i.e. Rs. 17,199/-per month. He has further submitted that no amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium by the Tribunal and the amount awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side, thus prayer has been made that compensation be substantially enhanced. 8. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned Counsel for New India Assurance Company Ltd. has submitted that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, however, learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously held that Respondent No. 12 insurance company of Truck No. MP15-D-1929 is liable to pay compensation up to the limit of 50,000/-only, despite the fact that Tribunal itself arrived at the conclusion that drivers of both the vehicles in question, were equally negligent for causing accident. Thus, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal as to the liability of Respondent No. 12 is against the settled principle of law. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The questions involved in these appeals are extent of liability of both the insurance companies and quantum of compensation to be awarded. 10. Coming to M.A. No. 3430/2009; as per the finding of the Claims Tribunal, deceased Dhanraj Singh was aged 48 years at the time of accident, hence multiplier of 13 has rightly been applied. With respect to income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal considered salary certificate (Ex. P-88) of deceased Dhanraj Singh and committed error in taking into account the net salary of the deceased i.e. Rs. 15,039/-per month for the purpose of calculating the annual income, in which income tax, GPF, GIS and house rent were deducted. It is settled principle of law that except income tax, other deductions cannot be made from the gross salary for the purpose of computation of actual salary as held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. 2009 ACJ 1298 . 11. In these circumstances, income tax of Rs. 210/-is liable to be deducted from gross salary of Rs. 17,199/-, thus salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 17199-210= Rs. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. 2009 ACJ 1298 . 11. In these circumstances, income tax of Rs. 210/-is liable to be deducted from gross salary of Rs. 17,199/-, thus salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 17199-210= Rs. 16,989/-per month and annual income comes to Rs. 16989 x 12 = Rs. 2,03,868/-. Considering the number of dependents on the deceased, 1/4th deduction is being made. After making 1/4th deduction towards the self expenditure, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,52,901/-, by applying the multiplier of 13, compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 19,87,713/-. In addition, claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5000/-for loss of estate, Rs. 5000/-for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,287/-for funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lakhs only). The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 15,73,500/-. Thus the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 4,26,500/-. The enhanced compensation to carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. It is made clear that out of the aforesaid amount of compensation, a sum of Rs. One Lakh be disbursed to Appellant No. 1 and remaining amount will be deposited in the fixed deposit with the Nationalized Bank in equal proportion in favour of Appellants No. 2 to 5. 12. Coming to M.A. No. 3255/2009; on persual of impugned judgment, it reveals that learned Tribunal itself, after appreciating the evidence on reocrd, held that drivers of both the vehicles in question were equally negligent for causing accident and despite this fact, liability of United India Insurance Company has been held only up to Rs. 50,000/-. 13. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is erroneous. As per "Private Car Package Policy" (Ex-d-32), which is a comprehensive policy, risk or death or bodily injury of any person, including occupant carried in the motor vehicle not carried for hire or reward, would be covered. In this case also, there is no evidence as regard to the fact that occupants of the car were carried for hire or reward. In these circumstances, finding of the Tribunal that United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. In this case also, there is no evidence as regard to the fact that occupants of the car were carried for hire or reward. In these circumstances, finding of the Tribunal that United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside. It is held that United India Insurance Company Ltd. is also liable to pay 50% of the award amount. 14. Coming to M.A. No. 3705/2009; which was filed by Tulsiram Patel, driver of one of the offending vehicles (Jeep MP15-A-3091) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on account of injuries sustained in the accident. 15. Learned Counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and has awared the meagre amount as compensation. He has prayed that compensation be suitably enhanced. 16. I have gone through the evidence on record. It is clear that driver Tulsiram Patel sustained fracture in ribs and left hand, on account of which the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6000/-, which appears to be on lower side. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/-along with medical expenditure of Rs. 1438/-. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 16,438/-. Since the Tribunal has found that both the driver are equally negligent for causing accident, hence 50% amount is reduced. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 8,219/-. The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 17. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of these appeals.