JUDGMENT : Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. By the present appeal, the appellants have sought enhancement in compensation as awarded to the appellants u/s 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the Tribunal. 2. The deceased who died out of accident on the night of 20/21.10.1984 was aged 41 years and working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,239.30. He left behind wife, three children and his parents. One of his daughters Anita Kumari was already married and was not dependent upon him although she was arrayed as a claimant. The learned Tribunal while computing compensation considered that a sum of Rs. 439.30 would be the amount being spent by deceased on his own upkeep and took the dependency as Rs. 800 p.m. The learned Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 in this case and arrived at a compensation of Rs. 1,05,600 payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that deduction on self maintenance was wrongly taken even more than 1/3rd, while the deceased was having more than four dependants. The Tribunal also took into consideration a low multiplier of 11 whereas multiplier of 14 should have been taken into account. 3. It is undisputed that deceased left behind a widow, two dependent children (since one daughter was married) and his aged parents. The mother of the deceased would also for all intents and purposes be considered as dependent on the son in view of the advancing age of the father of the deceased. Thus, the number of dependants of the deceased in this case was four. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Apex Court laid down a rule of thumb for calculating compensation. The deduction towards personal expenses in case where dependants were 4 to 6 should be 1/4th of the salary. Considering the salary of the deceased as Rs. 1,239,1 consider that around 1/4th, i.e., Rs. 309 would have been proper deduction for personal expenses of the deceased and monthly dependency should be considered as Rs. l,239 - Rs. 309 = Rs. 930. Considering the salary of the deceased as Rs. 1,239,1 consider that around 1/4th, i.e., Rs. 309 would have been proper deduction for personal expenses of the deceased and monthly dependency should be considered as Rs. l,239 - Rs. 309 = Rs. 930. Since the deceased was working in Delhi Police, he was bound to have regular increments and his future career would have progressed with time and in view of judgment in Sarla Verma's case (supra), his age being 41 years 30 per cent should have been added towards future prospects. Thus, a sum of Rs. 279 should have been added towards future prospects. The proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case (supra), would be 14. Thus, the claimants would have been entitled to a compensation of Rs. (930 + 279) x 12 x 14 = Rs. 2,03,112. Dependants have also not been awarded compensation for loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. I award Rs. 5,000 each towards loss to estate and loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses Thus, the total compensation the claimants should have been awarded would come to Rs. 2,03,112 + Rs. 12,000 = Rs. 2,15,112. The award of learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and it is held that appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,15,112 instead of Rs. 1,05,600 in the same proportion. 4. It is argued by the counsel for the insurance company that liability of insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 in this case since the insurance policy issued by the insurance company was 'Act only' policy. The policy as issued by the insurance company was proved before the Tribunal as Exh. RW1/8 and this policy would show that basic premium of Rs. 200 was charged and insured sum value was written as 'Act only'. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be limited to Rs. 1,50,000 only and the insurance company would be liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000 along with interest thereon while the rest of the amount would be claimable from the owner of the truck. The award of Tribunal is modified. 5. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,15,112 instead of Rs. 1,05,600. The interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount as awarded by the Tribunal and 7 per cent on the enhanced compensation from the date of award, i.e., 20.1.1997. The award of Tribunal is modified. 5. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,15,112 instead of Rs. 1,05,600. The interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount as awarded by the Tribunal and 7 per cent on the enhanced compensation from the date of award, i.e., 20.1.1997. The insurance company would be liable to pay additional amount within its limited liability of Rs. 1,50,000 plus interest thereon and the remaining amount would be recoverable from the owner of vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 1. With this the appeal stands disposed of