Judgment 1. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellants-claimants seek enhancement of compensation in respect of death of one Vinayak Sawant i.e. husband of appellant No.1 and father of other appellants. He was working as a Head Clerk and expired in a road accident on 11/8/1997. At the time of his death, he was working as Head Clerk with the State Government. The fact that he left behind him widow and four children i.e. total five dependents is not in dispute. Similarly the quantum of amount awarded towards hospitalisation is also not under challenge before this Court in the present appeal. 2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Lotlikar with Ms. Patil, for the appellants and Advocate Shri Bharne, on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Nobody has appeared for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Advocate Lotlikar has submitted that as number of dependents was 5, by following the settled position in this respect, deduction on account of personal expenditure of the deceased should have been 1/4th of his gross salary and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) committed error in deducting 1/3rd therefrom. He has further pointed out that the MACT ought to have taken into account gross salary of Rs.7,240/-drawn by the deceased at the time of his death and calculation on the basis of net salary of Rs.4,070/-is erroneous and unsustainable. He has invited attention to a Certificate issued by Office of Executive Engineer, Government of Goa, where he was lastly serving, on 1/10/1999 by which the total net salary, after deductions has been certified. He has relied upon an order dated 27/10/1997 by which wage revision as per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 has been made applicable to the employees of Government of Goa with effect from 1/1/1996. He states that thus revised gross salary of the deceased, after this Fifth Wage Revision, which has been worked out at Rs.8,115/-needed to be taken into consideration while applying multiplier of 11. He submits that the bar contained in Clause 5 of Government Order dated 27/10/1997 is not relevant in the present matter. 4. By placing reliance upon a Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported at (2011) 4 SCC 689 in case of Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and ors. He submits that the bar contained in Clause 5 of Government Order dated 27/10/1997 is not relevant in the present matter. 4. By placing reliance upon a Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported at (2011) 4 SCC 689 in case of Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and ors. vs. The Administrative Officer and Anr., learned Senior Advocate has contended that 15% of the gross salary of the deceased, after revision, ought to have been added on account of loss of future potential and thereafter compensation should have been worked out. He states that thus calculated, the compensation works out to Rs.14,56,804/-. He adds that as per the Judgment of Honourable Apex Court, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- needed to be awarded to the widow, on account of loss of consortium, equal amount under that head for children and an amount of Rs.25,000/- should have been awarded towards funeral expenses. He submits that the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is, therefore, incorrect and this Court has to determine the just compensation, in accordance with law. To buttress his submissions, he has drawn support from the Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court reported at (2013) 7 SCC 476 in case of VimalKanwar and ors. vs. Kishore Dan and ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 in case of Rajesh and ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and ors. and (2013) 11 SCC 517 in case of Sharanammaand ors. vs. Managing Director, Divisional Contr., North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. 5. Advocate Shri Bharne appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company submits that method of calculation of compensation adopted by learned MACT is in accordance with law then prevailing and subsequent change therein is not sufficient to vitiate that consideration and application of mind. He relies upon a Judgment of Honourable Apex Court reported at (2008) 2 SCC 774 in case of Ashaand others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another, to submit that there the Honourable Supreme Court found that the net salary only needs to be looked into for the purposes of computation of compensation. Judgment reported at 2009 ACJ 1298 i.e. (2009) 6 SCC 121 in case of SarlaVerma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another is relied upon by him to show that pay revisions are not relevant in such matters. Judgment reported at 2009 ACJ 1298 i.e. (2009) 6 SCC 121 in case of SarlaVerma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another is relied upon by him to show that pay revisions are not relevant in such matters. He also relies upon the Government Order dated 27/10/1997 to submit that benefit of that pay revision could not have been extended to the deceased who was not alive on that day. He further submits that as the deceased was above 50 years' of age, no addition on account of loss of future prospects is legally permissible. 6. In the light of the arguments advanced, the following points arise for my consideration: (1) Whether gross salary of deceased Vinayak was needed to be looked into by the MACT for the purposes of calculating compensation? (2) Whether the benefit of Fifth Pay Revision extended as per Government Order dated 27/10/1997 should have been considered by the MACT? (3) What has to be the amount payable to the appellants under the heads “Loss of Consortium” and “Funeral Expenses”? (4) Whether deduction of 1/3rd of salary for personal expenses of deceased is legally correct? (5) Whether 15% of the salary needed to be added on account of loss of future prospects? 7. The fact that the deceased was 52 years' of age on 11/8/1997, is not in dispute. Correctness of multiplier of 11 used by the MACT is also not in dispute. The Salary Certificate dated 1/10/1999 (Exhibit-57) shows unrevised monthly gross salary of the deceased to be Rs.7,240/-. After deduction of Rs.30/- towards CGHS contribution, Rs.2,240/- towards GPF contribution and Rs.900/- towards GPF advance, net salary payable to him worked out to Rs.4,070/-. The said Certificate also shows his fixation as per Fifth Pay Commission Report. The revised pay scale which became applicable was at Rs.5000-150-8000. In this case, his basic pay was fixed at Rs.6200 as on 1/1/1996 and at Rs.6500 as on 1/3/1997. Other allowances like Dearness Allowance, CCA, House Rent, needed to be added to this amount. It is not in dispute before this Court that after adding these amounts, his gross salary on the date of the accident works out to Rs.8,115/- per month. 8. Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Ashaand others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another (supra), relied upon by Mr. It is not in dispute before this Court that after adding these amounts, his gross salary on the date of the accident works out to Rs.8,115/- per month. 8. Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Ashaand others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another (supra), relied upon by Mr. Bharne, shows observations of the Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 9 that claimants are entitled to be compensated for loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is of the amount which they would have continued to receive, had there been no accident. The Honourable Apex Court, therefore, upheld action of the High Court in accepting net salary of deceased and working out compensation accordingly on that basis. The deductions which have been taken into account by the High Court these are towards LIC/GIS, towards society dues and towards House Building Advance. It may be mentioned here that this view has been doubted by Honourable Apex Court itself in the Judgment reported at (2008) 2 SCC 763 in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Indira Srivastava and ors.. The Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sharanammaand ors. vs. Managing Director, Divisional Contr., North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra) shows acceptance of gross salary payable to the deceased as basis for calculation of compensation in paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof. 9. The question is whether benefit of wage revision, as per Government Order dated 27/10/1997, could have been extended to the deceased. Clause 5 of the Government Order states that salary for the month of November, 97 was to be drawn and disbursed at the new rate, without pre-check of pay fixation statement in respect of revised pay scales. This clause further states that it was not applicable to the employees who had relinquished service on account of dismissal, resignation, discharge, retirement or death on or after 1.1.1996. Clause 6 thereafter shows that separate orders were to be issued regarding disbursement of arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 1.1.1996 till 31.10.1997. Clause 5 nowhere denies benefit of wage revision to an employee who was alive on 1.1.1996 and continued to work thereafter. Here, the deceased Vinayak expired about 2 years and 8 months after the said date. Clause 5 nowhere denies benefit of wage revision to an employee who was alive on 1.1.1996 and continued to work thereafter. Here, the deceased Vinayak expired about 2 years and 8 months after the said date. Scheme in clause 5 is only to see that the employees continuing in Government service should be paid at the revised rates, without pre-check of pay fixation statement. This concession has not been made applicable to those who were not in Government service on 27/10/1997 or in November, 1997. Obviously, if any mistake/error in pay revision and fixation comes to notice later on, recovery could have been made from a person continuing in Government service. Therefore, cases of such person continuing in service was exempted from pre-check of pay fixation. The employees not living or not in service could not have been subjected to such concession as recovery from them of any excess, if paid, might not have been possible. Clause 5 does not show an intention to disentitle such ex-servants of their due salary for work put in by them. Hence, it is apparent that the deceased Vinyak was entitled to the benefits of wage revision and his gross salary fixed at Rs.8,115/- per month, ought to have been taken into account by the MACT for the purposes of calculating compensation. 10. Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) shows an observation that when deceased is above 50 years' of age, no addition should be made towards future prospects. This Judgment also shows that when number of dependents is between 4 to 6, 1/4th of the salary should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the present facts, the dependents of the deceased are five and, therefore, the MACT should not have deducted 1/3rd from the monthly salary payable to the deceased Vinayak. The deduction should have been of 1/4th amount only. 11. Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and ors. vs. The Administrative Officer and Anr. (supra) considers the ruling in case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) and in paragraph 10 allows addition at 15 % in case of a salaried employee aged above 50 years. 11. Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Sri K.R. Madhusudhan and ors. vs. The Administrative Officer and Anr. (supra) considers the ruling in case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) and in paragraph 10 allows addition at 15 % in case of a salaried employee aged above 50 years. This Judgment shows that in paragraph 9, Honourable Apex Court has considered its view in case of Sarla Verma (supra) and found that the rule laid down in Sarla Verma was attracted when there was no concrete evidence on record of definite loss of income due to future prospects. Consideration of the Honourable Apex Court in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Judgment shows that the deceased was 43 years old and he could have retired at 58. After superannuation, he would have earned pension of Rs.6,000/-. His salary per month was Rs.15,642/-on 4.10.1998 i.e. at the time of accident. Honourable Apex Court has deducted income tax from his salary and an amount of 1/5th thereafter towards personal expenses. Thus, an amount of Rs.11,200/-was found available for the dependents. In this situation, in paragraph 10, Honourable Apex Court noted that the deceased was entitled and in fact bound to get rise in income in future and his case was, therefore, falling within within the 'exceptional circumstances' and not within the purview of rule of thumb laid down in Sarla Verma (supra). 12. Here also, the deceased was a Head Clerk in the State employment, entitled to earn increments every year. He would have served for 8 years more years, considering the age of retirement of State Government employees as 60 years, and hence, the observations of the Honourable Apex Court noted supra, are squarely attracted. It is, therefore, clear that monthly salary of the deceased needed to be hiked by 15 % towards loss of future potential. 13. Shri Bharne, however, as submitted that in the present matter, there are no exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances mentioned by Honourable Apex Court are in paragraphs 9 and 10. The fact that Vinayak was bound to earn yearly increments till his superannuation is sufficient to reject the argument of Advocate Bharne. 14. Advocate Shri Bharne has also invited attention to the calculation of compensation by Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 16 of this Judgment. The exceptional circumstances mentioned by Honourable Apex Court are in paragraphs 9 and 10. The fact that Vinayak was bound to earn yearly increments till his superannuation is sufficient to reject the argument of Advocate Bharne. 14. Advocate Shri Bharne has also invited attention to the calculation of compensation by Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 16 of this Judgment. He has submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000/- only has been awarded towards funeral and transport expenses and Rs.25,000/-towards loss of love and affection. He has contended that thus, the law applied by the MACT, in this respect, cannot be faulted with. Sitting in welfare jurisdiction, when Honourable Apex Court has clearly clarified the situation, and the law in respect of compensation towards loss of consortium and funeral expenditure, I do not find any substance in this argument. Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and ors. (supra), looking into the price index, lays down that in absence of any evidence to the contrary, claiming higher funeral expenses, Tribunal has to award a fair compensation of Rs.25,000/-. In paragraph 17, it has considered earlier decision of itself and also concept of non-pecuniary damage prevailing in other countries and concluded that it would be just and reasonable for Courts to award at least Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium. This Judgment delivered by Larger Bench of Honourable Apex Court clinches the issue in favour of the appellants and against respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 15. Advocate Shri Bharne, however, has relied upon observations of Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma (supra). He submits that future pay revision is totally irrelevant. The observations of Honourable Apex Court need to be looked into in the background of the facts placed before it for its consideration. The contentions of the said appellants before the Delhi High Court are mentioned in paragraph 4. The High Court accepted Rs.4,004/- per month as salary of the deceased. Having regard to the fact that the deceased had 22 years' of service left, considering the annual increments and pay revision, it held that his salary would have been Rs.8,008/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation was worked out. The High Court accepted Rs.4,004/- per month as salary of the deceased. Having regard to the fact that the deceased had 22 years' of service left, considering the annual increments and pay revision, it held that his salary would have been Rs.8,008/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation was worked out. Before Honourable Apex Court, the claimants submitted that two wage revisions were pointed out to the High Court and as per those wage revisions, pay of the deceased would have been Rs.20,890/- as on 31.12.1999 and Rs.32,678/-as on 1.10.2005, had he been alive. Thus, according to them, at the time of retirement such pay drawn would have been Rs.32,678/-. Accordingly, they wanted compensation to be determined by accepting the said figure. It is these arguments which find consideration in paragraphs 22, 23 and 24. Honourable Apex Court has found that said contention was not sound. Uncertainties in life, is the reason given by Honourable Apex Court. It has also noted that the accidental death took place in the year 1988 and award was made by the Tribunal in the year 1993. The High Court decided the appeal in 2007. Pendency of claim proceedings and appeal for nearly two decades was held to be a fortuitous circumstance, not entitling the appellants to rely upon the pay revisions which took place in the course of said two decades. Thus, the view expressed by Honourable Apex Court is on the facts presented to it and has got no bearing here. In case of deceased Vinayak, wage revision had taken place during his life time i.e. from 1.1.1996 itself. But its benefit has been given after his accidental death i.e. vide Government Order dated 27/10/1997. 16. I, therefore, find that the monthly salary of the deceased Vinyak calculated at Rs.8,115/-ought to have been taken into account for the purposes of computation of compensation. The said salary should have been increased by 15% towards loss of future potential. Thus increased, it works out to Rs. 9,332.15. One fourth thereof i.e. Rs.2,333.00 needed to be deducted towards personal expenditure and then product arrived at accordingly was for dependents' monthly sustenance. When it is multiplied by 12 months yearly amount i.e. multiplied and arrived at Rs.83,990.25. The said amount should be multiplied by multiplier of 11. The amount of compensation payable to the appellants on account of death of Vinayak, thus, works out to Rs.9,23,892.75. When it is multiplied by 12 months yearly amount i.e. multiplied and arrived at Rs.83,990.25. The said amount should be multiplied by multiplier of 11. The amount of compensation payable to the appellants on account of death of Vinayak, thus, works out to Rs.9,23,892.75. The said amount needs to be increased further by allowing amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium for all dependents and an amount of Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenditure. Thus added, the total amount of compensation payable to the present appellants is Rs.10,48,892.75 17. The appellants have already received a part of this amount as per the impugned award. That amount needs to be deducted from Rs.10,48,892.75 and the appellants are entitled to the balance. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is, accordingly, directed to pay the balance amount to them, with 9% per annum interest on the said balance amount, calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition, till date of payment. 18. Points for determination framed above are answered accordingly. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed and disposed of.