JUDGMENT Claimants in MVC 1606/2010 on the file of the MACTXII, Bijapur dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation in the Judgment and award dated 29.3.2012 have presented this appeal. Claimants none other than the widow, two minor children being son and daughter and mother of one Umesh Survase, aged 34, as on 21.5.2010, the date of death having succumbed to grievous injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.5.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. while riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing registration No.MH45/4028 proceeding from Polytechnic College to Maddi Vasti at solapurcity while near Dayanand College on the road leading to Samrat Chowk at Bijapur, due to high speed and rash and negligent manner of riding the motor cycle which dashed against the road divider. Umesh Survase when shifted to a hospital at Solapur, despite treatment, succumbed to injuries on 21.5.2010, the cause of action for the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘Act’ registered as MVC 1606/10, arraigning as respondents, the insured and the insurer of the offending motorcycle. 2. The claim was opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondents denying the accident and death. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the MACT framed three issues, the first of which is over proof of accident and allegation of attributing actionable negligence on the rider of the motorcycle. The first claimant was examined as PW1 and three other witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13, while for the respondents none were examined except marking the Insurance Policy as Ex.R1. 3. MACT having regard to the material on record and evidence, both oral and documentary returned a finding in the affirmative over issue No.1 attributing actionable negligence to the rider of the motorcycle. As regards the quantum of compensation, the MACT noticed that the deceased was serving as an Attender in the Govt. Polytechnic college drawing salary of Rs.12,867/p.m. and accepted as credible evidence the pay slip for the month of April, 2010, Ex.P9 and after deducting Rs.200/towards professional tax, reckoned Rs.1,51,884/as the annual income of the deceased and applying multiplier ‘15’ for age 36 arrived at Rs.22,78,260/. Polytechnic college drawing salary of Rs.12,867/p.m. and accepted as credible evidence the pay slip for the month of April, 2010, Ex.P9 and after deducting Rs.200/towards professional tax, reckoned Rs.1,51,884/as the annual income of the deceased and applying multiplier ‘15’ for age 36 arrived at Rs.22,78,260/. The MACT deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.7,59,420/towards future prospects added 50% of Rs.7,59,420/i.e. Rs.3,79,710/(Rs.7,59,420 + Rs.3,79,710) to award Rs.11,39,130/towards loss of dependency, to which was added Rs.10,000/towards loss of love and affection and consortium; Rs.5000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/towards medical expenses being an inpatient in Markandeya hospital from 15.4.2010 to 20.5.2010, toalling to Rs.12,04,130/together with interest at 6% p.a. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the MACT fell in error in reckoning Rs.12,857/as monthly salary of the deceased while Ex.P9 salary slip discloses that the deceased was paid Rs.12,907/for the month of April, 2010 and Rs.200/towards professional tax, which when deducted the monthly income is Rs.12,707/. It is further submitted that and regard being had to the fact that deceased was aged 36 was entitled to addition of 50% of his salary towards loss of future prospects and as the deceased left behind four dependents, the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 1/4th and applying multiplier ‘15’, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.25,73,167.50. Learned counsel in addition submits that the MACT fell in error in not awarding adequate compensation towards loss of love and affection and transportation of the body from Solapur to Bijapur a distance of 100 kms by road. In addition, it is submitted that since the deceased lived for seven days after the accident and succumbed to injuries despite treatment at Markhandeya hospital in Solapur, is entitled to, in the least, Rs.25,000/towards ‘pain and suffering’ being under the shadow of death. Lastly it is submitted that the MACT ought to have awarded compensation towards loss to estate. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentinsurer very fairly submits that there is an error in the calculation of the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency, while in all other respects is just and proper. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the depositions both oral and documentary and examined the Judgment and award impugned, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Ex.P9 the salary certificate issued by the Govt. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the depositions both oral and documentary and examined the Judgment and award impugned, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Ex.P9 the salary certificate issued by the Govt. Polytechnic college, Solapur and certified by PW4 the Principal of the said college, discloses that for the month of April, 2010, the pay and allowances drawn by the deceased was a gross amount of Rs.12,907/and the professional tax of Rs.200/and deducting the same the actual salary is Rs.12,707/, to which is necessarily to be added 50% of the said salary towards future prospects since deceased was in a permanent job, less than 40 years of age and if so done, is Rs.19,060.50. The deceased left behind four dependents as noticed supra, and therefore the deduction towards his personal expenses ought to be 1/4th i.e. Rs.4765.125 and if so done, the monthly loss of dependency is Rs.14,295.375 and the annual loss is Rs.1,71,544.50. Applying multiplier ‘15’ for age 36 of the deceased, the loss of dependency is Rs.25,73,167.50 rounded off to Rs.25,73,200/which the claimants are entitled to. 7. The MACT awarded Rs.10,000/towards loss of love and affection and consortium which we think is meagre and therefore, we award Rs.10,000/each of the claimants towards ‘loss of love and affection’ and Rs.10,000/towards ‘loss of consortium’. 8. The award of Rs.50,000/towards medical expenses, and Rs.5,000/towards funeral expenses, in our considered opinion does not call for interference. The MACT having not awarded compensation towards loss to estate, we award Rs.10,000/ 9. The deceased was employed at Solapur while the family i.e. claimants are residents of Bijapur, a distance of 100 kms by road and therefore, for transportation of the body from Solapur to Bijapur, we think it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/. 10. Undoubtedly the deceased having sustained grievous bodily injuries as an inpatient in Markhandeya hospital from 14.5.2010 to 21.5.2010, eventually succumbed to injuries. 10. Undoubtedly the deceased having sustained grievous bodily injuries as an inpatient in Markhandeya hospital from 14.5.2010 to 21.5.2010, eventually succumbed to injuries. Keeping in mind the observation of the Apex Court in N.Sivammal & others –v Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation & another [ AIR 1985 SC 106 , (1985) 1 SCC 18 ] wherein Rs.5,000/was awarded towards pain and suffering who lived for 19 days after the accident under the “shadow of death” in an accident that occurred during the year 1978 and applying the very same to the facts of this case we think it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/towards pain and suffering, since deceased was under “shadow of death”. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The Judgment and award is modified entitling the claimants to the following compensation: i) loss of dependency                                        Rs. 25,73,200 ii) loss of love & affection                                              40,000/ iii) loss of consortium                                                      10,000/ iv) medical expenses                                                     50,000/ v) pain & suffering                                                        25,000/(shadow of death) vi) transportation of body                                              10,000/ vii) funeral expenses                                                       5,000/ viii) loss to estate                                                          10,000/ Total                                                                     Rs. 27,23,200/ and in all other respects remains unaltered.