JUDGMENT : U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Netrawalkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 6/1/2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the Taluka of Salcete at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short) in Claim Petition No. 125 of 2004. 2. The appellants were the respondents whereas the respondents were the claimants in the said petition. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said claim petition. 3. The claimants had filed the said petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) for grant of total compensation of Rs. 23,00,000/- on account of death of the wife of the claimant No. 1 and mother of claimants No. 2, 3 and 4 in the motor vehicular accident. Case of the claimants, in short, was as follows : "On 28/6/2002, the wife of the claimant No. 1 namely Filomena, since deceased, was driving Wagon-R Car bearing registration No. GA02/J-5737 at a normal speed and on reaching Majilwada, Ponda at 11.50 hours, the Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. GA02/J-4802, came from opposite direction at a fast speed and dashed against the Wagon-R car due to which the deceased lost control over her car which tilted. Due to the collision between the two vehicles, the deceased suffered serious internal injuries which resulted in her death. The claimants, therefore, lost the earning member of their family. All the children were taking education in different institutions and have lost the shelter. The claimant No. 1 also lost his practice due to the death of his wife since he was under shock. The accident had occurred totally due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Zen car by respondent No. 1." 4. The respondents filed their written statement thereby denying the case of the claimants. They alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Wagon-R car by the deceased herself. The accident had occurred totally due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Zen car by respondent No. 1." 4. The respondents filed their written statement thereby denying the case of the claimants. They alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Wagon-R car by the deceased herself. The respondents stated that on 28/6/2002, the respondent No. 1 was proceeding by his Maruti Zen car bearing No. GA02/J-4802 from Ponda towards Margao at a slow speed and on his correct side and when he reached near the house of one Smt. Laxmi Naik near Sai Baba Temple at Borim, the deceased, who was proceeding with Wagon-R car towards Ponda drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at a fast speed and at the spot of accident, suddenly lost control and came towards wrong side of the road and dashed against the wall of the house of Smt. Laxmi Naik and thereafter, turned turtle on the road and dashed front left side of the car driven by the respondent No. 1. The respondents, therefore, claimed that the accident had occurred totally due to rash and negligent driving of the Wagon-R by the deceased herself. 5. Issues were framed by the learned M.A.C.T. as per the rival contentions of the parties. The claimants examined the claimant No. 1 as AW1, Shri Xavier Marques, one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of the scene of accident and sketch as AW2, Dr. Somnath Perni, who conducted Autopsy examination on the dead body of the deceased as AW3, Shri Guruprasad Cuncolienkar, the Deputy Director of Accounts/PA-III as AW4, Shri Nacimenta Fernandes, a maid servant as AW5, Ms. Carmin Barretto, a student of ballet Class as AW6 and Shri Shubham Borkar, an eye-witness, as AW7. The respondents examined respondent No. 1 as RW1, one Shri Laxman Naik as RW2, Shri Uday Naik as RW3 and Shri Mafaldo Fernandes as RW4. 6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as well as of the respondent No. 1. The learned M.A.C.T. held that the deceased, while in service, was earning Rs. 23,000/- per month by way of salary and Rs. 5,300/- by way of tuition fees. The deceased had taken voluntarily retirement from service on 28/6/2002. The learned M.A.C.T. held that the deceased, while in service, was earning Rs. 23,000/- per month by way of salary and Rs. 5,300/- by way of tuition fees. The deceased had taken voluntarily retirement from service on 28/6/2002. The learned M.A.C.T. found that the last drawn salary of the deceased as Lecturer was ' 22,260/- per month as on 31/1/2002 and, therefore, she would draw pension of 50% of the salary inclusive of D.A. which according to the M.A.C.T. worked out approximately to Rs. 10,058/- per month. Adding Rs. 5,000/- earned by giving tuitions, the net income of the deceased was held to be Rs. 15,058/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and using multiplier of 11, since that the age of the claimant No. 1 was between 52 to 55 years, the learned M.A.C.T. fixed the loss of dependency at Rs. 13,25,104/-. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs. 2,500/- was awarded towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. Towards pain and sufferings, the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was awarded to the claimants. The total compensation was calculated at Rs. 15,34,604/- and since it was the case of contributory negligence, an amount so calculated was scaled down to Rs. 11,50,953/-. The petition was, thus, partly allowed holding that the respondents, jointly and severally, were liable to pay to the claimants the compensation of Rs. 11,50,953/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment. The amount paid under section 140 of the M.V. Act was ordered to be adjusted. The claimants have not challenged the said judgment and Award, but the respondents have challenged the same by way of present appeal. 7. Mr. Netravalkar, learned Counsel for the respondents, pointed out that the sketch of the spot of the accident which is part of Exhibit 28-colly shows Maruti Zen car on correct side of the road whereas Wagon-R having turned turtle on the wrong side. He pointed out that the said Wagon-R had dashed the house and the said house had developed cracks. He further pointed out that damages were to the left side of the Maruti Zen car. He pointed out that the said Wagon-R had dashed the house and the said house had developed cracks. He further pointed out that damages were to the left side of the Maruti Zen car. He pointed out that RW3, then A.S.I., Uday Naik has stated that no offence was registered against any driver and the case was closed as "A" summary since the accident was caused due to the fault of the driver of Wagon-R herself, who died in that accident. He submitted that AW1, the claimant No. 1 had not seen the accident and that the only eye-witness examined by the claimants was AW7. According to him, the evidence of AW7 was not at all reliable as compared to that of RW1 and RW4. He, therefore, urged that the accident had occurred totally due to the fault of the deceased and, therefore, the claim petition be dismissed. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the deceased had resigned prior to the date of accident and there was no evidence to work out her pension. He submitted that even if there was pension, after the death of the deceased, the family would continue to get family pension which amount was required to be deducted. He further submitted that being a Government servant, the deceased could not have taken tuition. He, therefore, urged that only notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month could have been taken as income of the deceased. He pointed out that according to AW4, she signs and never affixes thumb impressions but the receipt at Exhibit 34 shows thumb impression and, therefore, the same is manipulated. According to the Counsel, this shows the conduct of the claimants. He further urged that a huge amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded towards pain and sufferings. He pointed out that in the present case, the victim had died immediately and there was no question of any pain and suffering. He further submitted that even the interest of 9% p.a. awarded by the M.A.C.T. is on a higher side. He, therefore, urged that if this Court is not inclined to dismiss the claim petition, then, the compensation awarded be reduced appropriately. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the learned M.A.C.T. has rightly accepted the evidence of AW7. He, therefore, urged that if this Court is not inclined to dismiss the claim petition, then, the compensation awarded be reduced appropriately. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the learned M.A.C.T. has rightly accepted the evidence of AW7. He read out the testimony of AW7 and submitted that his cross-examination reveals that he was fully aware of the site. He pointed out that the evidence on record shows that people had informed fire brigade and the deceased was removed out of the car by the members of the fire brigade. He submitted that RW4, who is examined as eye-witness, does not know as to who had removed the victim from the car. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that RW4 is not a reliable witness. He submitted that in such circumstances, there was evidence of RW1 on one side and AW7 on the other side and the learned M.A.C.T. has held that there was contributory negligence which the claimants had not objected to. Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel for the claimants further submitted that since the deceased had taken voluntary retirement, it goes without saying that there had to be pension. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Lal Del and others v. Himachal Road Transport), 2007 B.C.I., (soft) 148 (S.C.) : 2007(8) S.C.C. 319 , he submitted that while awarding compensation, the family pension given to the family cannot be deducted. He submitted that there is ample evidence on record to establish that the deceased was earning about Rs. 4,500/- per month by giving tuition. He submitted that the income of Rs. 15,058/- taken by the learned M.A.C.T. cannot be called as unjust. He further submitted that since the dependents were four in number, deduction ought to have been 1/4th, but the learned M.A.C.T. has deducted 1/3rd. He also urged that at least Rs. 1,00,000/- had to be granted towards loss of consortium and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- had to be granted towards funeral expenses. He, therefore, submitted that if all the above factors are taken into consideration, the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. cannot be taken as exorbitant. He, therefore, urged that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and Award. 9. I have gone through the original record and proceedings of Claim Petition No. 125/2004. He, therefore, submitted that if all the above factors are taken into consideration, the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. cannot be taken as exorbitant. He, therefore, urged that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and Award. 9. I have gone through the original record and proceedings of Claim Petition No. 125/2004. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the judgments relied upon by them. 10. The first point that arises for determination is whether the accident had occurred totally due to the fault of the deceased herself. 11. It is true that AW1, the claimant No. 1, was not an eye-witness to the accident. As per the information received by AW1, he deposed that on 28/6/2002 at about 11.50 a.m., his wife was travelling in her Wagon-R at a normal speed and that at Majilwada-Borim, Ponda, a Maruti Zen came from opposite direction in speed and dashed to the Wagon-R driven by his wife, due to which the Wagon-R tilted and due to the impact of collision between two vehicles, his wife suffered serious internal injuries which resulted in her death on the same day of accident. He stated that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of Maruti Zen. He stated that his wife used to go regularly for her work in the same car and was well conversant with the said road. In his cross-examination, AW1 denied the suggestion that his wife was in a hurry to reach to the college for her lectures and that she was driving the Wagon-R at a very fast speed and could not control the vehicle and dashed against the compound wall of one Laxmi Naik and thereafter, turned and dashed against Maruti zen car and thereafter turned turtle. In fact, the deceased had retired from service and there was no question of going to the college in a hurry. There was no reason fro her to drive at excessive speed. 12. In fact, the deceased had retired from service and there was no question of going to the college in a hurry. There was no reason fro her to drive at excessive speed. 12. AW7 Shri Shubham Borkar, in his affidavit-in-evidence, stated that on 28/6/2002, he was proceeding from Ponda towards Lotoulim on his bike and at around 11.50 hours when he reached at Majilwada-Borim, one Maruti Zen overtook him rashly and at a fast speed and dashed Wagon-R car which was coming from opposite direction from the left side of the road, if one proceeds from Margao to Ponda. AW7 stated that due to the impact of the said dash, Wagon-R turned turtle and dashed against the wall of the house which was very close to the main road and remained in upside down position. He stated that he stopped the bike and ran towards Wagon-R along with other people and saw that one lady was on the driver's seat of the said Wagon-R with her body pressed in the vehicle and had sustained serious injuries and was looking as if she had died. He stated that he left the accident spot thereafter and on the next day, narrated the incident to his friend by name Tony Coutinho. He stated that after some months, said Tony called him and told that the said lady was mother of his friend Stahl Sales and that the said accident was reported by the police as self accident and, therefore, Stahl Sales wanted to contact him. AW7 stated that after some days, Stahl Sales contacted him and he narrated the incident to Stahl. According to AW7, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti Zen. In his cross-examination, AW7 stated that on 28/6/2002, he had set out for Panaji from Ponda around 11.00 hours. He stated that he did not know the family of claimants at any time earlier and that his friend Tony Coutinho had told him that his presence would be required in the Court. He stated that the Zen car overtook him at a distance of 100 metres approximately and prior to the spot of accident. He stated that he did not know the family of claimants at any time earlier and that his friend Tony Coutinho had told him that his presence would be required in the Court. He stated that the Zen car overtook him at a distance of 100 metres approximately and prior to the spot of accident. He admitted that there were speed breakers on the road towards Ponda side in the vicinity of the accident spot and that there was downward slope to the road towards the spot from Margao to Ponda and upward slope in the opposite direction. He stated that he had noticed that the steering wheel was pressed against the chest of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he was nowhere in the vicinity of the accident spot. Merely because AW7 left the accident spot, it cannot be said that he was nowhere in the vicinity of the accident spot, at the relevant time of accident. AW7 was not knowing the deceased lady and had nothing to do with her family and, therefore, naturally, he left the accident spot. Merely because Tony Coutinho was the friend of Stahl Sales, the mother of the deceased, it cannot be said that AW7 was interested witness. The testimony of AW7 is not shaken in his cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve him fully. 13. RW1, the respondent No. 1, stated in his affidavit in evidence that on 28/6/2002, he was driving the Maruti Zen bearing registration No. GA-02/J-4802 belonging to his wife i.e. respondent No. 2 and was proceeding from Ponda towards Margao in a slow speed and on his correct side. He stated that at about 11.50 hours, he reached near the house of one Smt. Laxmi D. Naik near Sai Baba Temple, Borim when the deceased lady, who was proceeding towards Ponda by her Maruti Wagon-R car bearing registration No. GA-02/J-5737, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a fast speed and on reaching the spot of the accident, all of a sudden, lost control over the vehicle and came towards wrong side of the road and dashed against the wall of the house of Smt. Laxmi D. Naik and thereafter, turned turtle on the road and dashed to the front left side portion of the Maruti Car driven by him. RW1 stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased herself. RW1 produced local newspapers namely Gomantak Times dated 29/6/2002 and Tarun Bharat of the same date as Exhibit 50 colly as also the extract of the final report as Exhibit 51 colly. First of all, the deceased was an educated person being a retired Professor at Engineering College at Farmagudi and a responsible family person. She had died on the spot whereas the respondent No. 1 had not sustained any injury. In such circumstances, there was nobody at the spot except RW1 to give news to the representatives of the said newspapers, in the manner he wanted. In his cross-examination, RW1 has stated that he was driving Zen Car at a speed of 30 Kilometres per hour from the left side of Ponda-Margao road. He further stated that Laxmi Naik was demanding money from Police prior to removal of the vehicle since the wall of her house was damaged. He stated that he had tried to avoid the impact with Wagon-R car on seeing it dashing against the wall of the house and then turning turtle. He stated that the police had made inquiries with him apart from conducting panchanama and other formalities and he had described as to how the accident had taken place. He admitted that he had continued to be at the spot till the conclusion of the panchanama and even when the body of the deceased was lifted from the accident spot and even thereafter. The version given by RW1 to the police was, therefore, one sided. No doubt, RW1 denied the suggestion that taking advantage of the absence of the family of the deceased, he prevailed upon the police and police acted in collusion with him and prepared panchanama and the sketch at the spot. 14. Instead of examining Smt. Laxmi Naik, the respondents examined Shri Laxman Naik as RW2. stated that on 28/6/2002 by about 11.50 hours, he had reached home from the fields and was washing his feet in the courtyard when he noticed the Maruti car proceeding from Margao towards Ponda direction from the courtyard of his house, which was on the right side of the road. He stated that the said Maruti car dashed against the wall of his house and in the process fell against another Maruti car coming from Ponda towards Margao. He stated that the said Maruti car dashed against the wall of his house and in the process fell against another Maruti car coming from Ponda towards Margao. He stated that the police recorded his statement as also that of his wife. He stated that Maruti car, proceeding from Margao towards Ponda, was driven at a very fast speed and that his house was totally damaged due to the impact of the Maruti Car and he incurred expenses of Rs. 8,000/- approximately towards repairs. In his cross-examination, RW2 admitted that he was looking at his feet while washing them and came towards the road only after hearing sound of impact. He admitted that he saw the car dashed against his house only after hearing the sound of impact. He could not state as to who were the occupants of the Maruti Van proceeding from Margao to Ponda and for that matter, the occupants of Maruti car proceeding from Ponda direction. He denied the suggestion that his wife was demanding money from the police on account of damages to their house, soon after the accident. Since the Maruti car driven by the deceased had dashed the wall of the house of RW2, naturally, RW2 had to claim damages from the deceased. Therefore, it is quite possible that RW2 had put the blame on the deceased. But he had not seen the actual accident. 15. According to RW3, A.S.I. Uday Naik, no offence was registered against any driver, but the case was closed as "A" summary, since, according to the A.S.I. Wadkar since deceased, the death was caused due to the fault of the deceased herself. 16. RW4 Shri Mafaldo Fernandes, in his affidavit in evidence, stated that on 28/6/2002, he was proceeding from Churchorem to Ponda by his scooter bearing registration No. GA02/-1488 and at about 11.50 hours, he reached Majilwada-Borim where one Wagon-R bearing registration No. GA02/J-5737 overtook him in a rash and negligent manner and at a fast speed and thereafter, all of sudden went towards right hand side of the road and gave dash to the house situated on that site and thereafter, turned turtle on the road and dashed to Maruti car bearing registration No. GA02/J-4808 which had halted after crossing the speed breaker on noticing the Wagon-R coming towards wrong side. He stated that as soon as he saw the Wagon-R giving dash to the house and turning turtle, he stopped his scooter and rushed to help the driver of the said Wagon-R and found that driver was one lady, who was trapped in the car. He stated that thereafter the people who gathered there, removed the lady from the Wagon-R and kept her body on the road to give first aid and it was found that she was dead. RW4 stated that there was no fault on the part of the Maruti Zen and the fault was totally of the deceased lady. He stated that after some time, the police came to the spot and he along with the other persons narrated the incident to the police. According to RW4, he had given his address to the driver of the Maruti Zen and on 1/7/2008, the wife of the said driver of Maruti Zen contacted him and requested to come as a witness. He stated that since he had witnessed the accident, he agreed and accordingly, on 2/7/2008, contacted the Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company and narrated as to how the accident had taken place. In his cross-examination, RW4 stated that he was working as a teacher in Churchorem and after the accident, learnt that the respondent No. 1 was from Churchorem. He stated that he was proceeding to Ponda for some personal work in and around Telephone Department. He stated that he confirmed that the deceased was removed from the vehicle by the members of the public and further stated that he did not know if the fire brigade personnel had arrived at the spot or had removed the deceased from the damaged car. In fact, the fire brigade personnel had arrived at the spot and had removed the dead body from the car. The Final Report says that the fire brigade was informed to rush to the spot. No other witness including RW1 stated that the Maruti car had halted after crossing the speed breakers. The testimony of RW4 is not free from suspicion and cannot at all be relied upon. 17. The Final Report says that the fire brigade was informed to rush to the spot. No other witness including RW1 stated that the Maruti car had halted after crossing the speed breakers. The testimony of RW4 is not free from suspicion and cannot at all be relied upon. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the evidence of AW7 and of RW1, in my view, the conclusion arrived at by the learned M.A.C.T. that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as well as the respondent No. 1, in the ratio of 25:75, cannot be faulted. There was no reason for the deceased to suddenly lose control over the vehicle and go on the wrong side. Otherwise, the deceased was not a new driver. She used to always travel by the same car. I, therefore, hold that the learned M.A.C.T. has correctly held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as well as of the respondent No. 1 and that the contributory negligence was in the proportion of 25:75. 18. The next point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is unjust and unreasonable and should be reduced. 19. The evidence of AW1, the husband of the deceased proves that the deceased was Professor in Government College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda and while in service, she was earning Rs. 23,000/- per month. AW4 Shri Guruprasad Cuncolienkar, the Deputy Director of Accounts/PA-III has proved the last drawn salary certificate of the deceased which is at Exhibit 38. This certificate shows that as on 31/1/2002, the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs. 22,260/-. The deceased had taken voluntary retirement and was not in service as on the date of the accident i.e. 28/6/2002. Since the deceased had taken voluntary retirement, it can be safely presumed that she was getting pension. It is known fact that pension would be 50% of the gross salary and the learned M.A.C.T. has taken the income of the deceased by way of pension as Rs. 10,058/- which is in fact less than 50% of Rs. 22,260/-. 50% of Rs. 22,260/- is Rs. 11,130/-. 20. Merely because the deceased was a retired Government servant, it cannot be said that she was not entitled to take tuition and that she was actually not giving tuition. 10,058/- which is in fact less than 50% of Rs. 22,260/-. 50% of Rs. 22,260/- is Rs. 11,130/-. 20. Merely because the deceased was a retired Government servant, it cannot be said that she was not entitled to take tuition and that she was actually not giving tuition. AW1 has specifically stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,300/- by way of tuition. In his cross-examination, AW1 stated that his wife was taking tuition at home depending on the availability of time since she was otherwise, gainfully employed as a lecturer. There is no denial to the above statements made by AW1. The evidence of AW6, Ms. Carmin Barretto reveals that the deceased used to conduct ballet classes at Fatima Convent High School in the name and style of school of ballet. AW6 has stated that she was the student of the deceased in the year 1992 and used to pay Rs. 300/ - per month as fees. AW6 stated that after she finished her course, she joined the school of ballet as a teacher and the deceased started paying her Rs. 1,000/- per month as her salary. According to AW6, the deceased used to earn approximately about Rs. 20,000/- per month by conducting the school of ballet. She stated that the deceased had conducted two shows one at Gomant Vidya Niketan in the year 1993 and another at Kala Academy in the year 1994. In her cross-examination, AW6 stated that there were about 60 students learning ballet including herself. She could not say whether she would be in possession of the receipt issued to her by the deceased in respect of payment of Rs. 300 to the deceased. In my view, considering the evidence of AW1 and AW6, the learned M.A.C.T. has rightly held that the deceased-was drawing an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on tuitions. The age of the deceased was between 52 to 55 years. In the case of (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh), (2013) 9 S.C.C. 54 , the Hon'ble Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "12. In (Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.), case, 2009 B.C.I. 439 (S.C.): 2009 A.C.J. 1298 (S.C.), it has been staled that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. In (Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.), case, 2009 B.C.I. 439 (S.C.): 2009 A.C.J. 1298 (S.C.), it has been staled that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in case of those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between 50 and 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter." Since the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- by way of self employment of giving tuition, and since her age was below 60 years, an addition of 15% had to be made to her income of Rs. 5,000/-, and by doing so the said income of the deceased becomes Rs. 5,750/-. 21. The learned M.A.C.T. has held that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 15,058/-. As already stated earlier, If the income by way of pension was 50% of the last drawn salary which was Rs. 22,260/- it had to be Rs. 11,130/- and not Rs. 10,058/- as held by the learned M.A.C.T. Adding further income of Rs. 5,750/- earned out of tuition, the total income becomes Rs. 16,880/-. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents to the effect that the family of the deceased would be getting family pension after the death of the deceased and, therefore, the said family pension amount had to be deducted from the total income, has no force at all. In the case of "Lal Dei and others" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have deducted the amount of family pension given to the family while calculating dependency of the claimants. In the case of "Lal Dei and others" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have deducted the amount of family pension given to the family while calculating dependency of the claimants. The Apex Court referred to the case of (Helan C. Rebello v. Maharashtra S.R.T.C.), 1999 (3) Bom.C.R. 106 (S.C.) : 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 674 (S.C.) : 1999 (1) S.C. 90, wherein the Apex Court had specifically dealt with the said question and had observed that the family pension is earning of an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. It was observed that the heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death and there is no co-relation between the two and, therefore, the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while claiming the compensation awarded to the claimants. Therefore, the learned M.A.C.T. cannot be said to have committed any error by not deducting the family pension amount. 22. In the case of Sarla Varma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 B.C.I. (soft) 439 (S.C.) : (2009)6 S.C.C. 121 , it has been held that the age of the claimants or the deceased whichever is higher is relevant for determination of compensation, for motor vehicular accident cases. In the present case, since the wife of the claimant No. 1 had died, it can reasonably be said that the claimant No. 1 was elder to the deceased. As per the marriage certificate, which is part of Exhibit 21 colly, the claimant No. 1 was married to the deceased on 10/2/1983. The claimant No. 2 was born on 11/5/1984 which means that she was about 18 years old at the time of accident. The learned M.A.C.T. held that the age of claimant No. 1 was between 52 to 55 years at the time of accident. In the case of "Sarla Verma" (supra), it has been held that the multiplier to be used for age group of 51 to 55 years is 11. The learned M.A.C.T. has used the multiplier of 11. Hence, the multiplier has been rightly chosen by the learned M.A.C.T. 23. In the case of "Sarla Verma" (supra), it has been held that the multiplier to be used for age group of 51 to 55 years is 11. The learned M.A.C.T. has used the multiplier of 11. Hence, the multiplier has been rightly chosen by the learned M.A.C.T. 23. In the present case, though the claimant No. 1 is a Doctor by profession and, therefore, may not be dependent on the income of the deceased, however, the claimants No. 2, 3 and 4 were dependents on the income of the deceased. In the case of "Sarla Verma" (supra), it has been held that 1/3rd of the income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased if the deceased was married and the number of dependents were 2 to 3. Since in the present case, the dependents were three in number, the learned M.A.C.T. has rightly made the deduction of 1/3rd.. Since the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 16,880/-, her yearly income was Rs. 2,02,560/- and on deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, from the same, the remainder is Rs. 1,35, 040/-, which becomes the multiplicand. By using multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency becomes Rs. 14,85,440/-. In the case of "Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh", (supra), after considering various judgments including that in "Sarla Verma" (supra), the Hon'ble Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the compensation under the head "loss of consortium" to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses amount should be awarded at Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively. Even in the recent case of (Savita v. Bindar Singh and others), (2014) 4 S.C.C. 505 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the compensation under head "loss of consortium" to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses amounts should be Rs. 1,00,000/- and 25,000/- respectively. The learned Reference Court has awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and further awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings. In my view, the question of awarding compensation towards pain and sufferings in a death case would not arise. But, towards loss of consortium and towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively ought to have been awarded. By adding Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and further awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings. In my view, the question of awarding compensation towards pain and sufferings in a death case would not arise. But, towards loss of consortium and towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively ought to have been awarded. By adding Rs. 1,25,000/-, and Rs. 2500/- towards loss of estate, the total compensation comes to Rs. 16,12,940/-. Since it was the case of contributory negligence of 25:75 by bringing down the said amount by 25%, the compensation to which the claimants are entitled, becomes Rs. 12,09,205/-. The learned M.A.C.T. has awarded Rs. 11,50,953/- as compensation. The claimants have not filed any appeal against the said award. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award does not warrant any interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.