Judgment : G. P. MITTAL, J. 1. These two Cross-Appeals arise out of a judgment dated 01.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.64,48,952/- was awarded for the death of Satpal Singh Dagar, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 06.08.2010. 2. Both the parties urge that the computation of compensation has to be in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which should have been correctly applied. 3. The Appellant IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited urges that the deceased was more than 45 years so the appropriate multiplier should be ‘13’ and that the compensation awarded towards the loss of love and affection amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- is on the higher side. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Appellants in MAC APP.507/2012 (the Claimants) urges that the calculation towards payment of tax was not correctly carried out. The liability towards payment of tax was straightaway taken as 20% in respect of the whole income without giving any benefit towards the non taxable income. 5. It was established on record that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.48,110/-including the amount of Rs.4640/- towards transport allowance and Rs.7454/- towards the House Rent Allowance. The Transport Allowance being personal and incidental to the employment was not for the benefit of the legal representatives, the same has to be excluded to compute the loss of dependency. The House Rent Allowance was of course for the benefit of the deceased and the members of his family. The same was liable to be excluded while computing the income tax payable on the income. 6. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 discussed the previous report of the Supreme Court in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179 ; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 , and laid down the multiplier applicable at various age groups. (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 , and laid down the multiplier applicable at various age groups. The same can be extracted in a tabulated form hereunder:- “I. MULTIPLIER Age of thedeceased (in Multiplier years) 15-20 18 21-25 18 26-30 17 31-35 16 36-40 15 41-45 14 46-50 13 51-55 11 56-60 09 61-65 07 Above 65 05 7. It may be noticed that the multiplier has been given from the ages of 15-20, 21-25, 26-30 and so on. Thus, there is a technical flaw as to the multiplier between the ages of 20-21, 25-26, 30-31 and so on. To apply the judgment purposefully, the multiplier has to be taken as per the age which is nearer to the birth on the date of the accident. 8. Since the age of 45 is nearer to the birthday (he being 45 years and 3 months on the date of the accident), the age of 45 years shall be taken for computation of loss of dependency. Thus, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’ and not ‘13’. The loss of dependency following Sarla Verma (supra) comes to Rs.67,76,098/- (43,470/- x 12 – 25,222 (income tax) +30% x 3/4 x 14). 9. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Loss of love and affection can never be measured in terms of money. Thus, uniformity has to be adopted by the Courts while granting non-pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted only Rs. 25,000/- (in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection. Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- only. 10. The Claimants are further entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of consortium, loss to estate and funeral expenses as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 11. The overall compensation thus comes to Rs.68,31,098/- (67,76,098/- + 55,000/-). 12. There is an enhancement of Rs.3,82,146/- in the amount of compensation awarded, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit. 11. The overall compensation thus comes to Rs.68,31,098/- (67,76,098/- + 55,000/-). 12. There is an enhancement of Rs.3,82,146/- in the amount of compensation awarded, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced compensation shall enure for the benefit of the First Claimant. 13. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within eight weeks in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, New Delhi in the name of Smt. Vinod, the First Appellant. 14. 80% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two years, four years, six years and eight years. Rest of the amount shall be released to her on deposit. 15. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. 16. Both the Appeals are allowed in above terms.