RAFIQ, J.—Since the appeal has already been admitted, the cross-objection is also admitted. 2. The matter comes up on application filed by the claimants for vacation of interim-order passed by this Court on 4/11/2011 but it is held final. Since the arguments would suffice final disposal, let it be finally heard. 3. Shri Aladeen Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has argued that on evidence, present case may be held to be a case of contributory negligence atleast to the extent of 25% on the part of the deceased. It is in fact on this argument that this court was persuaded to pass the interim-order dated 4/11/2011. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 and argued that the deceased had climbed the bus and set on the roof of the bus. Hence, the deceased should be held responsible for the contributory negligence atleast to the extent of 25%. 4. Shri Sanjay Singhal, learned counsel for the cross-objector/ claimants has in his cross-objection prayed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), number of dependents being four even other married daughters are excluded, deduction of only 1/4th should have been made towards the own expenses of the deceased and not 1/3rd. It is argued that deceased was a Mason and his daily wages may be expected to be Rs.200/- per day and hence his monthly salary should be taken at Rs.6000/- for computation of compensation. Learned Tribunal has awarded nothing on the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the children. 5. Shri Aladeen Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has rejoined and submitted that minimum wages for the skilled labour at the relevant time was Rs.115/- per day and there was even no proof that deceased was a Massion. Therefore, income of the deceased should be accepted at Rs.3000/- per month and on that basis, computation of compensation be made. 6. Shri Aladeen Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-RSRTC has rejoined and submitted that minimum wages for the skilled labour at the relevant time was Rs.115/- per day and there was even no proof that deceased was a Massion. Therefore, income of the deceased should be accepted at Rs.3000/- per month and on that basis, computation of compensation be made. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-award, I find that the satisfaction of the Tribunal as to the income of deceased is concerned, same does not require any interference because even if deceased was either Mason or Skilled Labour, due to uncertainties of job, income of the deceased of Rs.3000/- per month is maintained. The Tribunal has at the age of 40 years, applied the multiplier of 16 and thus computed compensation of Rs.3,84,000/-. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- to the claimants for pain and suffering, whereas this amount of Rs.10,000/- can be considered as nothing has been awarded under the head of loss of consortium. Rs.6,000/- has been awarded for funeral expenses, which is enhanced to Rs.8,000/-. Rs.3,000/- each is awarded to three children total Rs.9,000/- under the head of love and affection. 7. The amount of compensation is re-computed thus:- (a) Rs.3,000/- per month accepted income. (b) After 1/4th deduction of Rs.3,000/-, the deducted amount comes to Rs.750/- and after minicing the same from the amount of Rs.3,000/-, the net deducted amount comes to Rs.2250/- per month. (c) 2250x12x16= 4,32,000/- (d) After adding Rs.11,000/- in Rs.16,000/- already awarded under all non-pecuniary heads, amount under this head comes to Rs.27,000/- (e) Rs.27,000/- + Rs.4,32,000/- = Rs.4,59,000/- (f) The original award of Rs.4,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs.4,59,000/-. (g) The claimants are entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/- @7.5% from the date of filing claim petition. (h) The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.59,000/- with interest aforesaid may be disbursed to the widow of deceased-Parmi, Smt.Anandi Bai however, remaining amount may be kept under the FDR as originally directed by the Tribunal and may be disbursed to the claimants as and when the FDR become mature. The appeal, cross-objection as well as application for vacation of interim-order are accordingly disposed of.