JUDGMENT S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. These appeals arise from the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012 in M.C.O.P. No. 319 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Third Additional District Court and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee (in short, 'the Tribunal') in and by which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,07,000 towards compensation with interest at 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, who lost their breadwinner in a road accident on 3.2.2011. The appellants in C.M.A. No. 151 of 2013, who are the claimants, have come forward with the appeal, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Clams Tribunal, whereas the appellant in C.M.A. No. 847 of 2013, the insurance company, has come forward with the appeal, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the claimants will be referred to as the appellants and the insurance company will be referred to as the respondent No. 1 and the owner of the vehicle will be referred to as the respondent No. 2. 3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of both the parties and to find out whether they are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for by them in these appeals respectively. 4. The deceased Vijayan was traveling in a car bearing registration No. TN 22-AX 8067 on Trichy-Chennai Highway along with his friends, Rajendran and Fakrudheen, on 3.2.2011 around 5 p.m. to go to Chennai and when the car reached opposite to Iyyappa Polytechnic (Cuddalore District), a lorry bearing registration No. TN 54-X 5477, belonging to the respondent No. 2, namely, S. Selva Raju, came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the left side of the car. Due to the said accident, the deceased Vijayan, who was travelling as an occupant in the car, sustained multiple grievous head injuries and died in the hospital on the same day. The appellants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Vijayan, filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 319 of 2011 before the Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs. 41,00,000 towards compensation. 5. Respondent No. 1, insurance company, filed a detailed counter-affidavit, contending that the claim of the appellants is vexatious and the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 41,00,000 towards compensation. 5. Respondent No. 1, insurance company, filed a detailed counter-affidavit, contending that the claim of the appellants is vexatious and the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The respondent No. 1 disputed the age, occupation, wage and injuries sustained by the deceased. It is further stated that the liability of the respondent No. 1 is subject to valid insurance, driving licence and other particulars, but in any event, the compensation was excessive. 6. On behalf of the claimants, Jaya, wife of the deceased, was examined as PW 1 and Devanathan, eyewitness to the incident, was examined as PW 2 and 16 documents were marked, viz., Exh. P1, F.I.R., Exh. P2, post-mortem certificate, Exh. P3, insurance policy, Exh. P4, R.C. book, Exh. P5, M.V. report (lorry), Exh. P6, M.V. report (car), Exh. P7, death certificate, Exh. P8, legal heir certificate, Exh. P9, PAN card, Exh. P10, passport, Exh. P11, letter, Exh. P12, deed of declaration, Exh. P13, income tax returns, Exh. P14, agreement, Exh. P15, the statement of bank account and Exh. P16, newspaper. On behalf of the insurance company, respondent No. 1, none were examined and no documents were marked. The respondent No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 7. One Durai Babu, eyewitness to the incident, preferred a complaint and based on that a case in Crime No. 75 of 2011, under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, was registered by Meppur Police. In post-mortem certificate, Exh. P2, it is stated that deceased Vijayan died of shock and haemorrhage due to the head injury and multiple injuries. Devanathan, PW 2, one of the eyewitnesses, stated that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the car in which the deceased was traveling. The Tribunal proceeded to discuss the issue and stated that insurance company contested the claim, but not disputed the accident. The contention of the insurance company is that the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle cautiously at moderate speed, but due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the accident occurred. But this was not established by the insurance company by adducing necessary evidence. The contention of the insurance company is that the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle cautiously at moderate speed, but due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the accident occurred. But this was not established by the insurance company by adducing necessary evidence. Taking note of the evidence of eyewitness Devanathan, PW 2, and complaint preferred by Durai Babu, the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry was at fault and only due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident occurred and the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., lorry was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal further held that the respondent No. 2, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte and the driver of the offending vehicle was not made as party to the proceedings, the respondent No. 2 being the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., lorry, is vicariously liable for the tortious act committed by his driver and the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured, namely, the respondent No. 2 since the insurance policy was alive on the date of the accident and the said policy was marked as Exh. P3. But the Tribunal proceeded to hold that for the death of the deceased Vijayan, the claimants-appellants are entitled to the compensation. Taking note of the age of the deceased as 49 years on the date of accident and time of death, which was determined based on the date of birth available in his passport copy, which was marked as Exh. P10, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier 13 as per Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 50 at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier to be applied was fixed as 13. 8. According to appellants-claimants, the deceased Vijayan was a cine producer, financier, trustee of Arulmigu Agatheeswarar Velviswarar Thirukoil and he was also involved in real estate business and getting monthly income of Rs. 40,000. To prove that the deceased was an income tax assessee, his PAN card was marked as Exh. P9 and from Exh. P11, it was established by the appellants that the deceased was nominated as an additional trustee of the aforesaid temple. Exh. P13 was marked showing the income tax returns filed by the deceased Vijayan for the assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. P9 and from Exh. P11, it was established by the appellants that the deceased was nominated as an additional trustee of the aforesaid temple. Exh. P13 was marked showing the income tax returns filed by the deceased Vijayan for the assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Deceased did not pay income tax for first two assessment years, after making necessary deductions. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the gross income was shown as Rs. 3,21,282 and a sum of Rs. 4,898 has been paid as income tax. 9. The case of the insurance company, respondent No. 1, is that the deceased Vijayan died on 3.2.2011 and in order to get more compensation, the income was boosted and income tax was paid for the assessment year 2011-2012. After going through the various documents, more particularly statement of bank account, Exh. P15, wherein it was mentioned that the deceased Vijayan was transacting huge amount when he was alive and based on Exh. P9 (PAN card) and P13 (income tax returns) and that the deceased Vijayan was a cine producer and involved in other business activities, the Claims Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs. 18,000, out of which 1/3rd was deducted for his personal expenses and, thereby, a sum of Rs. 12,000 p.m. was determined for the purpose of calculating the compensation. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier method and arrived at a compensation of Rs. 18,72,000. For the loss of dependency, the Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to the entire amount. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 20,000 for loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium and in total a sum of Rs. 19,07,000 was awarded as compensation and directed the respondent No. 1, insurance company, to pay the said compensation of Rs. 19,07,000 together with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 14.3.2011 till the date of deposit, within a period of one month. The Tribunal also held that failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time would fetch interest at 9 per cent per annum till the date of deposit. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that Jaya, wife of the deceased, was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,07,000 and the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 3,00,000 each with accrued interest. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that Jaya, wife of the deceased, was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,07,000 and the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs. 3,00,000 each with accrued interest. The entire amount was directed to be deposited in a nationalized bank for a period of three years. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,21,282 for the accounting year 2011-12, i.e., for a period of ten months, the Tribunal, instead of fixing the income at Rs. 32,128 per month, has erroneously fixed it at Rs. 18,000. He also contended that the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased without following the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , wherein it was held that in case of a family comprising 4 to 6 members only 1/4th should be deducted for personal expenses. The Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects of the deceased and that the loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000 was very meagre and also the amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection to the daughters of the deceased was very low and needs to be enhanced and the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the marital prospects of unmarried daughters. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, respondent No. 1, would contend that there was no evidence to show the actual income of the deceased and the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income at Rs. 18,000 without any basis. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in relying on IT returns which were exaggerated for the subsequent period after the death of the deceased in order to claim more compensation and that no auditor's report or statement of accounts of the deceased were produced before the Tribunal to show the actual income of the deceased. It is further contended that as per post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was 52 years and hence for determining the compensation while fixing the lower monthly income, the multiplier should have been taken as 11 and instead of doing so the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income at Rs. 18,000 and adopted the multiplier 13. 12. It is further contended that as per post-mortem certificate, the age of the deceased was 52 years and hence for determining the compensation while fixing the lower monthly income, the multiplier should have been taken as 11 and instead of doing so the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income at Rs. 18,000 and adopted the multiplier 13. 12. In support of their contentions, both parties have referred to following decisions and the relevant paras are extracted hereunder: (i) Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , para 11 : "(11) In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, AIR 1994 SC 1631 , this court increased the income by nearly 100 per cent, in Smt. Sarla Dixit and another Vs. Balwant Yadav and others, AIR 1996 SC 1274 , the income was increased only by 50 per cent and in Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General Geological Survey of India and Another, AIR 2003 SC 1817 , the income was increased by a mere 7 per cent. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30 per cent if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." (ii) Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." (ii) Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : "(39) In our view, the standards fixed by this court in Sarla Verma, on the aspect of deduction towards personal and living expenses in paras 14 and 15 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding para is made out. (40) In what we have discussed above, we sum up our conclusions as follows: (i) In the applications for compensation made under section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in column 4 of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma, read with para 21 of that judgment. (ii) In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of section 166 or section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in column 6 of the Table in Sarla Verma should be followed. (iii) As a result of the above, while considering the claim applications made under section 166 in death cases where the age of deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule to the 1988 Act. (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 9 of Sarla Verma for determination of compensation in cases of death. (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow para 11 of the judgment in Sarla Verma. (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in Sarla Verma, subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above. (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in Sarla Verma, subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above. (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration." (iii) Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : "(10) '...Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 11 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation'." (iv) Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, AIR 2014 SC 995 : "(12) The view taken in Santosh Devi (supra) has been reiterated by a Bench of three Judges in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, by holding as follows: '(11) Since the court in Santosh Devi's case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma's case and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 per cent always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 per cent to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 per cent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years'." (v) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 per cent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years'." (v) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastava and Others, AIR 2008 SC 845 : "(13) The question came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmavathy, CM. A. No. 114 of 2006; decided on 29.1.2007, wherein it was held: 'Income tax and professional tax, which are deducted from the salaried person, goes to the coffers of the government under specific heads and there is no return, whereas the general provident fund, special provident fund, L.I.C. contributions are amounts paid under specific heads and the contribution is always repayable to an employee at the time of voluntary retirement, death or for any other reason. Such contributions made by the salaried person are deferred payments and they are savings. The Apex Court as well as various High Courts have held that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and that the deferred payments made to the employee are contractual. Courts have held that there cannot be any deductions in the statutory compensation, if the legal representatives are entitled to lump sum payment under the contractual liability. If the contributions made by the employee which are otherwise savings from the salary are deducted from the gross income and only the net income is taken for computing the dependency compensation, then the legal representatives of the victim would lose considerable portion of the income. In view of the settled proposition of law, I am of the view that the Tribunal can make only statutory deductions such as income tax and professional tax and any other contribution, which is not repayable by the employer, from the salary of the deceased person while determining the monthly income for computing the dependency compensation. Any contributions made by the employee during his lifetime form part of the salary and they should be included in the monthly income while computing the dependency compensation'." 13. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 14. Any contributions made by the employee during his lifetime form part of the salary and they should be included in the monthly income while computing the dependency compensation'." 13. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 14. From the narration of the aforesaid facts and the evidence of eyewitness Devanathan, PW 2, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 3.2.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. TN 54-X 5477 by its driver, which resulted in the death of deceased Vijayan. Both the appellants and the respondent No. 1, insurance company, in their respective appeals, questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants-claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and it requires enhancement, whereas the respondent No. 1, insurance company, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and it requires modification. Therefore, these appeals are confined to determine whether the quantum of compensation which was awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or whether it requires further enhancement in the interest of justice. 15. As regards the monthly income of the deceased, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that deceased was a cine producer and also an additional trustee of a temple and having regard to the income tax returns (Exh. P13 series) of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have fixed his monthly income at Rs. 32,180, but erroneously, fixed the same at Rs. 18,000. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, insurance company, would contend that even for arriving at the monthly income at Rs. 18,000 by the Tribunal, there is no evidence to show the actual income of the deceased and the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income at Rs. 18,000. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, AIR 2014 SC 1052 , has held that the income of Rs. 6,500 per month of a vegetable vendor was very reasonable. Paras 7, 8 and 9 are relevant and they are extracted hereunder: "(7) Further, the appellant claims that he was working as a vegetable vendor. It is true that a vegetable vendor might not require mobility to the extent that he sells vegetables at one place. 6,500 per month of a vegetable vendor was very reasonable. Paras 7, 8 and 9 are relevant and they are extracted hereunder: "(7) Further, the appellant claims that he was working as a vegetable vendor. It is true that a vegetable vendor might not require mobility to the extent that he sells vegetables at one place. However, the occupation of vegetable vending is not confined to selling vegetables from a particular location. It rather involves procuring vegetables from the wholesale market or the farmers and then selling it off in the retail market. This often involves selling vegetables in the cart which requires 100 per cent mobility. But even by conservative approach, if we presume that the vegetable vending by the appellant-claimant involved only selling vegetables from one place, the claimant would require assistance with his mobility in bringing vegetables to the marketplace which otherwise would be extremely difficult for him with an amputated leg. We are required to be sensitive while dealing with manual labour cases where loss of limb is often equivalent to loss of livelihood. Yet, considering that the appellant-claimant is still capable of fending for his livelihood once he is brought in the market-place, we determine the disability at 85 per cent to determine the loss of income. (8) The appellant-claimant in his appeal further claimed that he had been earning Rs. 10,000 p.m. by doing vegetable vending work. The High Court, however, considered the loss of income at Rs. 3,500 p.m. considering that claimant did not produce any document to establish his loss of income. It is difficult for us to convince ourselves as to how a labourer involved in an un-organized sector doing his own business is expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. (9) There is no reason in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the appellant-claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs. 6,500 per month." While so, in the present case, considering the fact that deceased was self-employed, additional trustee of a temple and income tax assessee as seen from Exh. P13 (series), income tax returns, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000. 17. 6,500 per month." While so, in the present case, considering the fact that deceased was self-employed, additional trustee of a temple and income tax assessee as seen from Exh. P13 (series), income tax returns, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 18,000. 17. The contention of the respondent No. 1, insurance company, that the multiplier was wrongly applied is not correct. More particularly, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 738 , wherein it has been held that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation. Further, it is evident from the evidence on record that deceased completed 49 years at the time of occurrence of the accident, having regard to the decision in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2012) 6 SCC 421 , we are of the view that 30 per cent increment is to be added to the monthly income of deceased for future prospects. Considering the fact that the deceased had completed 49 years of age at the time of accident as evident by Exh. P10 (passport), the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal needs to be modified from 11 to 13. However, deductions at 10 per cent have to be given due weightage while fixing the monthly income after taking note of future prospects. Then the loss of dependency would be Rs. 18,000 + Rs. 5,400 = Rs. 23,400 - 10 per cent = Rs. 21,060 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 32,85,360. 18. However, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses. Admittedly, the deceased's family consists of more than four members including himself. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , 1/4th income should be deducted for personal expenses. So, the total loss of dependency for the death of husband of the claimant No. 1 would be Rs. 24,64,020. 19. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , 1/4th income should be deducted for personal expenses. So, the total loss of dependency for the death of husband of the claimant No. 1 would be Rs. 24,64,020. 19. As regards the award under the conventional heads, viz., loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased, loss of love and affection to the claimant Nos. 2 to 4, who are the children of the deceased, and funeral expenses, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has awarded very meagre amount under the said heads and the same are required to be enhanced. Having regard to the principles laid in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. In Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 20 as under: "(20) ...We may, therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: (i) loss of consortium to the spouse; (ii) loss of love, care and guidance to children; and (iii) funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 10,000 under those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc. the spouse is entitled to get has to be compensated appropriately. Concept of non-pecuniary damage towards loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world, more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. Concept of non-pecuniary damage towards loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world, more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under the head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium." (Emphasis added) 20. Therefore, having regard to the above, we are inclined to enhance the award to Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1, wife of the deceased, and Rs. 25,000 each to the claimant Nos. 2 to 4, daughters of the deceased, towards loss of love and affection who were deprived of their father's love and affection, care and guidance. 21. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the Tribunal has not granted any monetary relief as compensation towards marriage prospects of the unmarried daughters and hence, an appropriate amount has to be awarded. We find that the said contention is justified. It is not in dispute that as on the date of death of the deceased, two of the claimants were unmarried daughters. Applying the principles laid down in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Company, AIR 2014 SC 1052 , we feel it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000 each. Likewise, following the decision of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses and transport expenses. 22. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: 23. As regards the award of interest, the Tribunal has rightly awarded 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 14.3.2011 till the date of deposit. 25,000 towards funeral expenses and transport expenses. 22. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: 23. As regards the award of interest, the Tribunal has rightly awarded 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 14.3.2011 till the date of deposit. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and the same is confirmed. 24. With the above modification, both these appeals filed by the insurance company as well as the claimants are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M. Ps. are closed. 25. The respondent No. 1, insurance company, is directed to deposit the difference of the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 14.3.2011 till the date of payment, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the interest will be at 9 per cent per annum thereafter. Pursuant to the interim order dated 14.3.2013 of this court, 50 per cent of the award amount along with accrued interest thereon has been deposited by respondent No. 1, insurance company. Out of which, the claimants were already permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 8,00,000 and the balance amount was directed to be deposited in a nationalized bank. The claimants are now permitted to withdraw entire award amount including the enhanced amount proportionately on filing a proper application before the Tribunal.