JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal J.:-This order shall dispose of the above mentioned three appeals, as the same arise out of a common award dated 1.6.1994, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 27.7.1993, Gulab Singh (deceased) was driving scooter No. HR-20-5591 on Agroha Hissar road. At that time, his mother Savitri Devi and and sister’s son, namely, Chinu were the pillion riders. When he reached one kilometer away from Durjanpur Chowk towards Agroha, a four wheeler bearing No. HR-20A-6181 came from the opposite side, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and struck against the scooter. Due to the impact, Gulab Singh sustained serious injuries and died on the same day, whereas Savitri and Chinu also sustained multiple injuries. In the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of Gulab Singh, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,71,000/- as compensation, whereas in the claim petitions filed by Savitri and Chinu on account of injuries, they were awarded Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 16,000/- respectively. It is against this award that the claimants are before this Court. 3. In FAO No. 2049 of 1994, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was working as V.L.D.A. (Stock Assistant) in Animal Husbandry Department. His age was proved on record as 30 years, his date of birth being 8.4.1963 and the date of accident being 27.7.1993. His salary was proved as Rs. 3,409/- per month. The claimants were widow, parents and two minor children. The submission is that the learned court below while assessing the carry home salary of the deceased deducted the amount of contribution to General Provident Fund and Group Insurance amounting to Rs. 560/- and Rs. 30/- respectively and thereafter taking the salary at Rs. 2,819/- per month, reduced 1/3rd on account of his personal expenses and applied a multiplier of merely twelve. The amount of provident fund was not required to be reduced for determining the carry home salary of the deceased, as the same is nothing but saved earning, which could be saved for the family at home, in bank or with the government in provident fund account. The dependency determined by the learned Tribunal by applying a cut of 1/3rd is on the higher side, considering the number of dependents being five. The dependency determined by the learned Tribunal by applying a cut of 1/3rd is on the higher side, considering the number of dependents being five. Even the multiplier should have been 17, considering the age of the deceased. He further submitted that nothing was granted on account of funeral expenses, transportation and loss of consortium. 4. In FAO No. 2050 of 1994, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured in the present case was a six years’ old child, who had to remain hospitalised for 15 days for the injuries suffered by him. A sum of Rs. 10,440/- was spent on his treatment. Considering the pain and suffering of the child at the tender age, appropriate amount of compensation has not been awarded, as merely Rs. 5,000/- has been determined by the learned Tribunal on that account. Nothing has been awarded on account of travelling, attendant and special diet. Total compensation assessed was Rs. 16,000/- only. 5. In FAO No. 2051 of 1994, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant therein suffered fractures on her right upper arm, hip and collar bone. Though the amount spent on her treatment was about Rs. 1,00,000/-, as she had to remain in hospital for about a month. As the record of all the expenses are never kept, the learned Tribunal merely awarded Rs. 19,645/- and adding small amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering, awarded rounded off amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. In the present case also, nothing was awarded on account of travelling, attendant and special diet. 6. No one has appeared for the respondents. 7. As the appeals pertain to the year 1994, I did not deem it appropriate to adjourn the same. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I find that there is some scope for award of more compensation to the appellants, as the assessment made by the learned Tribunal does not seem to be in conformity with the settled principles of law. In FAO No. 2049 of 1994, the learned Tribunal had gone wrong in reducing the amount of contribution to General Provident Fund from the salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of dependency. The income of the deceased as well as his age were proved on record, which is not in dispute. In FAO No. 2049 of 1994, the learned Tribunal had gone wrong in reducing the amount of contribution to General Provident Fund from the salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of dependency. The income of the deceased as well as his age were proved on record, which is not in dispute. This Court in FAO No. 1732 of 2005 –National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamlesh and others, decided on 15.3.2010 had considered a similar issue and opined that the amount of contribution to General Provident Fund is not to be reduced from the salary of the deceased for the purpose of calculation of dependency. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal to that effect, is set aside. 9. As far as contribution by the deceased on account of Group Insurance Scheme is concerned, the same is a kind of expense or premium paid for which the benefit of insurance must have been paid to the family. Accordingly, that amount was rightly reduced by the Tribunal for the purpose of calculation of dependency. 10. The income of the deceased having been proved on record being Rs. 3409/- per month, reducing Rs. 30/- therefrom, balance comes out to Rs. 3,379/- per month. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, [2009(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, Hon’ble the Supreme Court opined that where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, the deduction on account of dependency should be 1/4th. In the present case, the claimants are widow, two minor children and the parents, total being five. Considering the aforesaid judgment, reducing 1/3rd on account of personal expenses for the purpose of calculation of dependency is set aside and it is directed that dependency has to be calculated by reducing 1/4th therefrom. 11. Now coming to the issue of multiplier, the same also, in my opinion, has not been rightly applied. Considering the age of the deceased to be 30 years plus, multiplier of 16 would be quite reasonable. The monthly income of the deceased is Rs. 3,379/- i.e., Rs. 40,548/- per annum. After application of cut of 1/4th, the dependency comes to Rs. 30,411/- per annum. Accordingly, applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation payable to the claimants comes out to Rs. 4,86,576/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,87,000/-. The monthly income of the deceased is Rs. 3,379/- i.e., Rs. 40,548/- per annum. After application of cut of 1/4th, the dependency comes to Rs. 30,411/- per annum. Accordingly, applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation payable to the claimants comes out to Rs. 4,86,576/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,87,000/-. In addition to the amount of compensation as assessed, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- be added on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of consortium. The amount on account of loss of consortium shall be paid to the widow only. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs. 25,000/- each along with interest shall be paid to the parents of the deceased and rest of the compensation shall be paid to the widow considering the fact that she had been taking care of the family all along ever since the death of the husband. 12. As far as FAO No. 2050 of 1994 is concerned, in my opinion, there is not much scope for enhancement therein considering the fact that in the evidence led, the claimant produced medical bills of Rs. 10,440/- and the same amount was granted by the Tribunal. Rs. 5,000/- were awarded on account of pain and suffering, which also cannot be said to be unreasonable. However, on account of special diet, travelling, attendant etc., another sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded in lump sum to the appellant, considering his tender age at the time of the accident. 13. Regarding FAO No. 2051 of 1994, considering the fact that the claimant herein suffered serious injuries and had to remain hospitalised for more than a month, but fortunately there was no permanent disability, as there was no such claim, in my opinion, additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- in lump sum would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the appellant herein. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ------------