JUDGMENT T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. The claimants, being unsatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (V Court of Small Causes), Chennai in MCOP No.1773 of 2004, dated 15.11.2008 have preferred this appeal. 2. The first appellant/claimant is the wife of Mr. G.Nagaraj, since deceased, the appellants 2 & 3 are their minor children and the fourth appellant, the mother of the deceased. The deceased Nagaraj, a Passenger Guard in the Southern Railway, on 27.12.2003, while riding in his motorcycle and proceeding in G.S.T. Road from Tambaram to Chrompet in the northern direction, the vehicle owned by the first respondent hit the motorcycle and on account of the accident, Mr. Nagaraj died on the spot. The claimants contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was getting an average monthly salary of Rs.21,791/-and other special benefits and he was aged about 39 years at the time of his demise and had 19 years of remaining service had he been alive and claimed a total compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-. 3. The first claimant examined herself as PW-1, PW-2 one Mr. Dhanasekaran, official from the railway was examined to prove the salary of the deceased and PW-3 was the eye-witness. The claimants marked 18 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.18, however, there was no oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the respondents. 4. The Tribunal after taking note of the deposition of the PW-2, who had deposed that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.21,791/-deducted 50% and fixed the salary at Rs.11,000/-. The annual income was calculated at Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.11,000X12); a sum of Rs.88,000/- was deducted from the said amount being 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The balance amount namely Rs.64,000 was assessed as the loss of contribution to the family and the Tribunal adopted the multiplier 16 and arrived at total loss of contribution at Rs.14,08,000/-; A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses; and a sum of Rs.20,000/-for loss of love and affection. The total award was for Rs.14,33,000/- together with 7.5% interest. 5. The challenge to the impugned award is on the quantum of compensation awarded being inadequate. 6. Mr. P.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal committed gross error in arriving at the salary of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-, when there was evidence to show that the deceased had drawn a gross salary of Rs.21,791/-. 5. The challenge to the impugned award is on the quantum of compensation awarded being inadequate. 6. Mr. P.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal committed gross error in arriving at the salary of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-, when there was evidence to show that the deceased had drawn a gross salary of Rs.21,791/-. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the deduction of 50% of the salary towards personal expenses is grossly excessive and that there was no provision made in the award for future prospects. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the head of loss of consortium and the compensation awarded under the head of loss of love and affection was grossly inadequate. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement. 7. We have heard Mr. J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company who sought to sustain the award by contending that the salary of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal was proper, as the salary has to be calculated after deducting income tax. 8. Ex.P.12 is the salary slip of the deceased, which shows that the gross salary, which the deceased received was Rs.24,705/- and the net pay was Rs.21,015/-. Ex.P.13, is the pay drawn particulars of the deceased for computation of income tax for the year 2003-04. Ex.P.17, is the salary particulars of the deceased for the period about eight months. Though in Ex.P.12, which is the salary slip for September 2003, the gross pay is mentioned as Rs.24,705/-, when we peruse Ex.P.12, the salary particulars for a period of eight months, it is seen that the gross pay received by the deceased varied depending upon the number of days, the deceased was on duty. Therefore, the pay of deceased largely depended upon the number of days, he has worked and the KM allowance was a major determinative factor to arrive at the gross pay. The highest which the deceased had drawn is Rs.21,791/-. PW-2, Mr. Dhanasekaran was an officer working in the Personnel Branch of Southern Railway, Chennai and in his cross examination, he has clearly stated that the deceased was a "running staff" and his monthly gross pay would be Rs.21,791/- and he would also be eligible for allowances, whenever he reports for duty. The evidence of PW-2, remains unassailed. PW-2, Mr. Dhanasekaran was an officer working in the Personnel Branch of Southern Railway, Chennai and in his cross examination, he has clearly stated that the deceased was a "running staff" and his monthly gross pay would be Rs.21,791/- and he would also be eligible for allowances, whenever he reports for duty. The evidence of PW-2, remains unassailed. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to hold that the gross pay of the deceased should be taken as Rs.21,790/-, rounded of to Rs.21,800/-. Since the pay so arrived at is without deduction of income tax, 10% of the gross pay shall be deducted towards income tax, which is Rs.2,180/- and the salary of the deceased is arrived at Rs.19,620/- (Rs.21800 -Rs.2180). The family of the deceased consists of four dependents namely, his wife, two minor children and his mother. Therefore, a deduction of 1/3rd should be adopted which is Rs.6,540/- and the contribution to the family is Rs.13,080/- (Rs.19620 – Rs.6540). The annual contribution to the family therefore would be Rs.1,56,960/- (Rs.13080 X 12). The age of the deceased has been proved before the Tribunal by producing Exs.P.8 & P.9, the school transfer certificates and was rightly determined by the Tribunal as 39 years and as per the II Schedule, the proper multiplier would be 16. Therefore, the loss of dependency is Rs.25,11,360/- (Rs.13080 X 12 X 16). 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would contend that according to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., [2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC)], an addition of 50% of the annual salary should be made towards future prospects as the deceased was aged below 40 years. 10. We are conscious of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet on the facts of this case, we have seen that the salary, which was drawn by the deceased was fluctuating and largely depended upon the number of days, he was employed. This is so because he was a running staff, working as Passenger Guard in Southern Railway and gross salary drawn by him every month largely depended upon the number of working days and the distance which he had travelled in the passenger train. This is so because he was a running staff, working as Passenger Guard in Southern Railway and gross salary drawn by him every month largely depended upon the number of working days and the distance which he had travelled in the passenger train. Therefore, the question of adding 50% for future prospects may not be arise, since we have adopted the salary at Rs.21,790/- which being the highest, which the deceased had drawn for during a span of eight months. 11. In so far as conventional damages, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- to each of the appellants/claimants under the head of loss of love and affection, totally Rs.20,000/-. This in our view is grossly inadequate and therefore, the same is enhanced to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 12. Under the head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. The first appellant/claimant was a young widow aged about 29 years. Rs.25,000/-is awarded towards Loss of Consortium. The award of Rs.5,000/-for Funeral Expenses as awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 13. Therefore, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,91,360/- (Rs.25,11,360 + Rs.50,000 + Rs.25,000 + Rs.5,000). 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,91,360/-together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 30.04.2004. 15. The first appellant/claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.13,91,360/- and 2nd & 3rd appellants/claimants shall each be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the fourth appellant/claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first and fourth appellants/claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation awarded along with accrued interest. As, it appears that the second appellant/claimant would have attained majority during the pendency of this appeal and if so, shall be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to her. Sofar as the third appellant/claimant compensation so awarded shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank and the first appellant/claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the interest periodically once in three months directly from the bank. On the third appellant/claimant attaining majority, the amount can be withdrawn by him. No costs.