Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.15,92,600/- awarded for the death of Raja in a road traffic accident on 04.05.2007, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.2505 of 2010. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimants have preferred C.M.A.No.407 of 2012. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, both the appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts are that deceased Raja and their family members and relatives had been to Kerala tour by Toyota Qualis car bearing registration No.TN-24 4365 (Private Taxi). On 04.05.2007 at 11.30 P.M. when the car was proceeding on Mettur-Bhavani Main road, opposite of Chinnapallam E.S.R.Garden, the driver of the Qualis car drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationery lorry bearing registration No.KA-01 A 6229. Due to the impact, the front portion of the Qualis car got crushed and went under the lorry chassis. Raja and his brother-in-law Gopal died on the spot. The other occupants of the car sustained grievous injuries. Deceased Raja was aged 50 years at the time of accident and was working as Senior Craftsman L II in M/s.T.V.S.Motor Company Limited, Hosur and was earning Rs.22,000/- per month. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the car driver in Crime No.188 of 2007 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. of Ammapettai Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver, the Claimants who are wife and daughters have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-01 A 6229 and its insurer were impleaded as Respondents in the Claim Petition. 3. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the counter contending that the lorry bearing registration No.KA-01 A 6229 was parked on the road, without any indication and signal. It is averred that the driver of the lorry is a joint tort feasor and that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of the drivers of both Qualis car and the lorry. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the occupation and income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the deceased and contended that the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/-claimed by the Claimants is on the higher side. 4. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied the occupation and income, monthly contribution to the family and age of the deceased and contended that the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/-claimed by the Claimants is on the higher side. 4. Before the Tribunal, M.C.O.P.Nos.272 of 2007, 288 of 2007 to 290 of 2007 were tried together. Claimants 1 and 2 (Geetha and Ragini) in M.C.O.P.No.272 of 2007 examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Dr.T.V.Gandhi was examined as P.W.3. The representative of M/s.T.V.S.Motor Company Limited viz., Kishore Kumar was examined as P.W.4. Exs.P1 to P35 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of United India Insurance Company, the then Senior Assistant viz., K.S.Ganesan was examined as R.W.1. The Head Constable Varadharajan was examined as R.W.2. Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.2 and Ex.P1-F.I.R. registered against the car driver and Ex.R5-rough sketch, Tribunal held the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver and that Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. Insofar as quantum of compensation, Tribunal held that deceased Raja was working as Senior Craftsman in M/s.T.V.S. Motor Company Limited, Hosur. Taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- and deducting Rs.10,000/- towards income tax and thereafter deducting one-third for personal expenses and adopting multiplier 13, Tribunal calculated the loss of income at Rs.12,61,000/-. Tribunal held that deceased Raja left seven years service and by giving 30% addition towards future prospects for seven years, Tribunal calculated the loss towards future prospects at Rs.3,06,600/-and Tribunal calculated the total loss of dependency at Rs.15,67,600/-. Adding conventional damages, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.15,92,600/-. 6. In their evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the occupants in the Qualis car have stated about the accident that the driver drove the Qualis car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked lorry. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was corroborated by the evidence of R.W.2-Head Constable. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.2 and registration of Ex.P1-F.I.R. against the car driver and also Ex.R5-rough plan are unassailable. Appellant-Insurance Company mainly challenges the quantum of compensation. 7. Quantum of compensation - Deceased Raja was working as Senior Craftsman L II in M/s.T.V.S. Motor Company Limited, Hosur. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.2 and registration of Ex.P1-F.I.R. against the car driver and also Ex.R5-rough plan are unassailable. Appellant-Insurance Company mainly challenges the quantum of compensation. 7. Quantum of compensation - Deceased Raja was working as Senior Craftsman L II in M/s.T.V.S. Motor Company Limited, Hosur. In her evidence, P.W.1-Geetha stated that her husband was earning Rs.18,000/-per month and that he had another eight years of service and due to his death, the family has lost the support. The representative of M/s.T.V.S.Motor Company Limited, Hosur viz., Mr.Kishore Kumar was examined as P.W.4. In his evidence, PW4 has stated that deceased Raja was working as Senior Craftsman and that he was getting salary of Rs.18,000/-per month and after deduction, his income was Rs.13,000/- per month. Ex.P33 is the salary certificate of the deceased Raja, as per which deceased was getting salary of Rs.18,403.40 per month. Ex.P34 is the pay slip for month of March, 2007, as per which the total salary of the deceased was Rs.17,869.89 per month and after deduction, his take home salary was Rs.14,000/-. Deducting certain allowances from the said amount of Rs.14,000/-, Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- per month. 8. Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- and calculated the loss of income at Rs.1,56,000/- per annum. From the said amount of Rs.1,56,000/-, Rs.10,000/- was deducted by the Tribunal towards income tax and the balance has been taken at Rs.1,46,000/-. Thereafter, deducting one-third for personal expenses i.e. Rs.49,000/-, Tribunal has calculated the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.97,000/-per annum. At the time of accident, deceased was aged 50 years and as per Second Schedule to M.V. Act, Tribunal adopted multiplier "13" and calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.12,61,000/- [Rs.97,000 x 13 = Rs.12,61,000/-]. Thereafter, Tribunal added 30% addition towards future prospects on Rs.1,46,000/-[Rs.1,46,000 x 30% = Rs.43,800/-]. For seven years service left, Tribunal calculated the amount for "future prospects" at Rs.3,06,600/- (Rs.43,800/- x 7 = Rs.3,06,600/-). 9. Learned counsel for Appellant-Insurance Company contended that deceased was aged 50 years and while so, Tribunal was not right in adding 30% addition towards future prospects and prayed for reduction. Deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident. Contention of Appellant-Insurance Company is that since deceased was aged 50 years, Tribunal ought not to have given addition of 30% towards "future prospects". 10. Deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident. Contention of Appellant-Insurance Company is that since deceased was aged 50 years, Tribunal ought not to have given addition of 30% towards "future prospects". 10. Per contra, learned counsel for Claimants contended that as per Exs.P33-salary cerificate and P34-salary slip, deceased Raja was getting income of Rs.18,403/-per month and while so, Tribunal erred in taking his take home salary of Rs.13,000/-. Learned counsel would further contend that all the allowances paid to the deceased ought to have been taken and the thereafter, Tribunal ought to have added 30% addition towards "future prospects" and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 11. By perusal of Ex.P33-salary certificate, it is seen that deceased was getting salary of Rs.18,403.40. As per Ex.P34-salary slip, for the month March 2007, his salary was Rs.17,869.89. Deducting Rs.3,877.11, his take home salary was Rs.14,000/-. 12. Contention of Claimants is that deceased was getting Rs.18,000/- per month and while so, Tribunal was not justified in taking the take home salary of Rs.13,000/-and prayed for enhancement. It is fairly well settled that only gross salary has to be taken into account and not net salary. 13. As per the decision in SarlaVerma's case [(2009) 6 SCC 121], when the deceased is having permanent job and is aged between 40-50 years, 30% additions to be made for future prospects. In 2012 ACJ 1428 (Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others), the Supreme Court held that additions are to be made even in a case of employees of private sector and also unorganised sector. In this case, deceased was employed in M/s.T.V.S.Motor Company Limited, Hosur as Senior Craftsman and was aged 50 years at the time of accident. Since the deceased was a permanent employee in M/s.T.V.S.Motor Company Limited, Hosur and was aged 50 years, in our considered view, 30% addition made by the Tribunal towards future prospects cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference. 14. In various decisions [ (2008) 2 SCC 763 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others) and 2009 (1) TNMAC 134 (SC) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma and others], the Supreme Court held that tax payable has to be deducted from the compensation. But in this case, Tribunal has deducted only Rs.10,000/- towards income tax. Secondly, deceased Raja was aged 50 years and he had seven more years of service. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma and others], the Supreme Court held that tax payable has to be deducted from the compensation. But in this case, Tribunal has deducted only Rs.10,000/- towards income tax. Secondly, deceased Raja was aged 50 years and he had seven more years of service. He would have actual service only for a period of seven years and for the remaining multiplier 6', either the deceased Raja would not have earned any income or he would have earned 40% – 50% of the salary towards pension, if the rules of the establishment so provide. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.13,000/- per month for the entire period of "13" multiplier. In such facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to enhance the compensation amount taking the income of deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month. 15. Income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.13,000/- is maintained. Tribunal has deducted one-third i.e. Rs.49,000/- towards “personal expenses” and calculated the “loss of income” at Rs.97,000/- per annum. Adopting multiplier "13", Tribunal calculated the “loss of dependency” at Rs.12,61,000/- (Rs.97,000 x 13). Thereafter, Tribunal added 30% addition and calculated “future prospects” for seven years at Rs.3,06,600/-(Rs.1,46,000 x 30% = Rs.43,800 x 7) and calculated the total “loss of dependency” at Rs.15,67,600/- (Rs.12,61,000/- plus Rs.3,06,600/-). The quantum of compensation so awarded for “loss of dependency” is reasonable and the same is confirmed. 16. Insofar as conventional damages, Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for “loss of love and affection”, Rs.10,000/- for “loss of consortium” and Rs.5,000/- for “funeral expenses” and the same are maintained. Thus the total compensation of Rs.15,92,600/-awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. The compensation amount of Rs.15,92,600/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants on pro rata basis as ordered by the Tribunal. 17. Tribunal has ordered interest at 6% per annum for the compensation awarded. In the common judgment, while disposing the other Claim Petitions (M.C.O.P.Nos.272 of 2007 and 288 to 290 of 2007), Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Absolutely, there is no reason as to why only 6% interest was ordered for the compensation awarded for the death of deceased Raja. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajapriya'scase [ (2005) 6 SCC 236 ], normally, the rate of interest to be awarded is 7.5% per annum. Absolutely, there is no reason as to why only 6% interest was ordered for the compensation awarded for the death of deceased Raja. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajapriya'scase [ (2005) 6 SCC 236 ], normally, the rate of interest to be awarded is 7.5% per annum. Following the decision of Rajapriya'scase, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to 7.5% per annum and C.M.A.No.407 of 2012 preferred by the Claimants is liable to be allowed to that extent. 18. In the result, the compensation of Rs.15,92,600/-awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.272 of 2007 dated 18.09.2009 on the file of Sub-Court, Hour is confirmed and C.M.A.No.2505 of 2010 preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed. Rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from 6% per annum to 7.5% per annumandC.M.A.No.407 of 2012 preferred by the Claimants is partly allowed to that extent. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Claimants 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share along with proportionate accrued interest. The compensation in respect of minor 3rd Claimant is ordered to be invested in any one of the nationalised bank till she attains majority. 1st Claimant-mother is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in a month directly from the Bank. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs in these appeals.