JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- CRP 29 of 2006 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.07.2006 mainly on the ground that the insurance company was not entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation. The National Insurance Company Ltd. filed special leave petition in the Apex Court against this judgment and a number of other cases which were heard together and all the cases were allowed and the matters remanded to the High Court. The Apex Court held that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Shila Datta & Ors.: 2011 (10) SCC 509 , the insurance company was entitled to challenge the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel has placed on record the certified copy of the order of the Apex Court. It seems that this order has not been received in the Registry. Therefore, the civil revision petition is restored to its original number and heard and disposed of today along with appeal filed by the claimants. 2. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala dated 1st December, 2005 in T.S.(MAC) No. 193 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 26,07,640/- in favour of the claimants. 3. The short question involved in this appeal is-what is the amount of just compensation payable to the claimants. 4. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was the Principal of the Government College at Sonamura. Her salary at the time of her death was Rs. 21,672/-. Since the deceased belonged to the schedule tribe she was not liable to pay any income tax. It is not disputed before me that the husband of the petitioner is also gainfully employed and a high ranking officer in the State of Tripura. There were two minor children aged 12 years and 8 years. The salary certificate of the deceased is on record and though her total salary was Rs. 21,672/-, she was getting Rs. 6552/- deducted. Out of these deductions Rs. 4,000/- was contribution towards GPF, Rs. 90/- towards her group insurance, Rs. 226/- for her professional tax, 10% was DA which was added towards Provident Fund since it was not paid by the Government, Rs. 300/- was deducted as house rent and Rs. 21,672/-, she was getting Rs. 6552/- deducted. Out of these deductions Rs. 4,000/- was contribution towards GPF, Rs. 90/- towards her group insurance, Rs. 226/- for her professional tax, 10% was DA which was added towards Provident Fund since it was not paid by the Government, Rs. 300/- was deducted as house rent and Rs. 500/- as festival recovery, which I am informed at the Bar is returned of a loan taken for some festive activities. 5. The amounts which she got deducted except the amount of professional tax were all in the nature of savings and therefore they have to be taken into consideration while assessing the dependency of the family. This is one of those cases where both husband and wife are gainfully employed. In that sense neither the husband was dependent on the wife nor the wife was dependent on the husband. But the fact remains that they were jointly running their household. Their savings would be much more because each would save more by way of provident fund and other savings because two persons contributed to the household. The expenses on the children would be borne both by the husband and wife in such a case, though it is normally the husband who would be the responsible for such expenses. In this case the total salary was Rs. 21,672/- at the time when the deceased died. In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma's Case, since the deceased was in organized employment and aged between 40 to 50 years 30% had to be added to her salary on account of her future prospect and the total income would therefore, come to Rs. 28,173/-. Since some amount would be deducted towards professional tax, I am taking the figure at Rs. 28,000/-. 6. In the present case, in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case 1/3rd has to be deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased and that will make the datum figure at Rs. 18,676/-. In this case, the trial Court has applied the multiplier of 15. This in my view is on the higher side because it is the age of the husband and the dependency of the children which is to be taken into consideration in this case. Even if the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case is applied then also the multiplier would be 14. This in my view is on the higher side because it is the age of the husband and the dependency of the children which is to be taken into consideration in this case. Even if the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case is applied then also the multiplier would be 14. Then the compensation works out to Rs. 18676/- x 12 x 14=Rs. 31,37,568/-. The claimant-husband is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for conventional damages. Therefore, the total award works to Rs. 31,67,568/-. 7. In view of the above discussion, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced from Rs. 26,07,640/- to Rs. 31,67,568/-. On this amount the claimants shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in court i.e. 16.03.2004 till payment of the entire amount. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amount(s), if any, which it has already deposited. The amount is apportioned equally between the three claimants. The amount falling to the share of the claimant Jotishlal Debbarma may be released. The amount falling to the share of Master Anurag Debbarma who was 12 years when the claim petition was filed and would be 21 years old now may be released to him. As far as the amount of Aradhita Debbarma is concerned that may be kept in a fixed deposit for three years for the first instance. 8. The appeal and the revision petition are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 9. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.