Judgment : This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order dated 17.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad in O.P.No.713 of 1999. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 3. Challenge to the order in the appeal is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not adequate, not properly computed and requires enhancement. 4. Mutyala Rajender, hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’ was working as Assistant Engineer and he died in the accident, which occurred on 31.07.1999. His salary as per Ex.A.10 salary certificate produced by the claimants was Rs.9,659/-. As per Ex.A.8, SSC certificate his date of birth was 30.03.1962 and the learned tribunal rightly considered his age basing on the said certificate as 39 years, made 1/3rd deduction, applied multiplier ‘16’ and arrived at compensation of Rs.11,25,000/-payable with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 5. In this appeal, it is contended on behalf of the claimants that since the deceased was aged 39 years and was working as Assistant Engineer in Government Department, the learned Tribunal ought to have added some amount to the salary towards future prospects. It is also further contended that since the dependants are five in number, the learned tribunal ought to have made deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd. 6. In view of the contentions urged by the appellants, the compensation has to be computed in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER 2009 ACJ 1298 the income of the deceased was Rs.9,659/-in the year 1999 when he died in the motor vehicle accident was in taxable range. Though there is no data available as to how much amount was being deducted towards income tax, certainly a reasonable amount has to be deducted towards income tax from the salary of the deceased. In the absence of any data available, I am of the view that the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation excluding income tax can be taken as Rs.8,000/-per month. In the absence of any data available, I am of the view that the income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation excluding income tax can be taken as Rs.8,000/-per month. Since the deceased was aged 39 years and was an Assistant Engineer in Government Department, 50% of his salary has to be added towards future prospects, then the total income per month comes to Rs.8,000/-+ Rs.4,000/-= Rs.12,000/-. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 12,000/-x 12 = Rs.1,44,000/-. Since the dependants are five in number, who include his minor child, widow and parents, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses which comes to Rs.36,000/-and the loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,44,000/-minus 36,000/-= Rs. 1,08,000/-. The multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased as per the case of SARALA VARMA case referred above is ‘15’. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalized with ‘15’, which comes to Rs.1,08,000/-x 15 = Rs. 16,20,000/-. This apart, the first claimant, who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium. All the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,20,000/-+ Rs.10,000/-+ Rs.5,000/-+ Rs.5,000/-=Rs.16,40,000/-. The interest granted by the learned Tribunal however, being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. With the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.