Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by claimant-appellants for enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,03,600/- awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindauncity, in MAC Case No.118/1999, vide its award dated 07.02.2002. 2. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that deceased Dhara Singh at the relevant time was working as Constable in the government service and that his age was 27 years. On that age, the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 16 and, as per the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), it should have applied the multiplier of 18 instead of 16. According to that judgment in Sarla Verma, supra, where number of dependents are five, deduction should be only 1/4th whereas learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. The learned Tribunal has though enhanced total monthly salary of the deceased from Rs.3,721/- to Rs.5000/- by adding the element of future prospects taking into consideration the fact that the deceased would have been getting the benefit of selection scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service as per the government circular. However, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, 50% should be added towards future prospects considering that the age of the deceased at the relevant time was only 27 years. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and argued that judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, cannot be applied in present case because the accident herein took place in the year 1998 and the appeal was filed in the year 2002, and that judgment of the Supreme Court could be applied only prospectively. Learned counsel argued that 1/4th has been deducted for contributory negligence of the appellant because he was a pillion rider of a motorcycle and apart from the driver, two more persons were sitting as pillion riders, thus in breach of law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the finding with regard to 25% contributory negligence of appellant is perfectly just and reasonable because three persons were riding on the motorcycle and claimant was one of them. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the finding with regard to 25% contributory negligence of appellant is perfectly just and reasonable because three persons were riding on the motorcycle and claimant was one of them. The monthly income of the deceased, as per the salary certificate and accepted by learned Tribunal, is Rs.3721/- and after adding 50% towards future prospects the monthly income would come to Rs.5581/-. After reducing 25% therefrom towards contributory negligence, the amount would come to Rs.4186/- per month. As per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and after deducting 1/4th therefrom, the monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.3140/-. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, the multiplier at the age of 27 years, should be 18 and not 16, as applied by learned Tribunal, hence the multiplier of 18 is applied. The compensation for loss of dependency is calculated thus – 3140x12x18=6,78,240/-. The compensation awarded by learned Tribunal under non-pecuniary heads of Rs.28,000/- i.e. Rs.5000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- for love and affection to children, Rs.10,000/- for love and affection to parents and Rs.3000/- for funeral expenses, is maintained. 5. The appellants thus be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.7,06,240/- (Rupees seven lac six thousand two hundred forty only) as total compensation. The appellants shall be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, which shall be paid to the appellants within a period of three months. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.