JUDGMENT : AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. 1. This appeal seeks enhancement of compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide Award dated 7.6.2004, on account of the death of Sh. Prem Shankar Shastri in a road accident found to have been caused on account of the negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who was driving an Ambassador car that hit the motor-cycle on which the deceased and appellant No. 1 were riding, on the date of accident. The appellants are the widow and 2 minor sons of the deceased. 2. The basic facts as taken from the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, are detailed hereinafter:- 1. Date of accident 16.6.2003 2. Vehicles involved Offending Ambassador car bearing Registration No. HR-02-0065 and Motor-cycle bearing Registration No. HR-26-S-1999 3. Name of the deceased Prem Shankar Shastri 4. Age of the deceased 38 years 5. Income of deceased as assessed by the Tribunal Rs. 11,940/- per month 6. Multiplier applied 16 Compensation Awarded by the Tribunal:- (i) For loss of income to the appellants Rs. 7,50,144/- (ii) For medical expenses Nil. (iii) For loss of estate Nil. (iv) Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- (v) For loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- (vi) For loss of love and affection Nil. (vii) Compensation awarded under all other heads Rs. 2,000/- (transportation) Total compensation awarded: Rs. 7,59,144/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realization of the amount. No appeal having been filed by the respondents against the Award, they have obviously accepted the finding therein and as such, are now only opposed to the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Mr. Mahavir Singh Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset first submits that the deceased was only 38 years of age and was employed as a Sanskrit Teacher in a Government School, and his salary was proved to be Rs. 11,940/- in the month preceding his death and though the Tribunal has obviously accepted that figure while calculating compensation to be awarded, it has erred on two vital issues; viz. (i) not taking into account the prospects of income to be earned in the future had the deceased not died on account of the accident; (ii) by deducting the family pension being received by appellant No. 1 amounting to Rs. 6,080/- per month. (i) not taking into account the prospects of income to be earned in the future had the deceased not died on account of the accident; (ii) by deducting the family pension being received by appellant No. 1 amounting to Rs. 6,080/- per month. He further argued that a multiplier of at least 18 should have been applied while calculating the loss of income to the appellant, considering that the deceased was only 38 years of age and in a steady Government Job. He has further argued that as per law now settled, a sum of Rs. 1 lac should have been awarded to appellant No. 1 for loss of consortium and Rs. 1 lac each should have been awarded to appellants No. 2 and 3 for loss of love and affection of their father. In this regard he cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ; Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 ; Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 and Lal Dei and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport, 2007 (8) SCC 319 . Further, he submitted that Rs. 25,000/- should have been awarded on account of funeral expenses and a sum of at least Rs. 15,000/- should have been awarded on account of transportation of the deceased, first in an injured condition from the site of the accident to the hospital and then on account of transportation of his body from hospital to his home. He also argued that interest @ 12% should have been granted by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation awarded, from the date of institution of the claim- petition till the date of realization of such compensation, whereas the Tribunal awarded only 9% annual interest. In all, he submitted, that a total compensation of at least Rs. 50,00,000/- plus interest @ 12% should have been awarded to the appellant, as against the Rs. 7,59,144/- awarded. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, submitted that the Tribunal had awarded more than adequate compensation and nothing further, whatsoever, needs to be enhanced under any head whatsoever. 50,00,000/- plus interest @ 12% should have been awarded to the appellant, as against the Rs. 7,59,144/- awarded. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, submitted that the Tribunal had awarded more than adequate compensation and nothing further, whatsoever, needs to be enhanced under any head whatsoever. He, however, could not deny the position of law, as settled in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants, even while insisting that the amount which would be arrived at by taking future prospects of income and under other heads in to account, would be highly excessive. 5. Mr. Sandhu, on the other hand, further argued that the Tribunal wrongly deducted Rs. 6,080/- per month from the last salaried income of the deceased on account of the fact that the appellant No.1 is receiving family pension of the said amount (Rs. 6,080/- per month) after the death of the deceased, from his employer, i.e. Government of Haryana. Towards this contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lal Deis' case (supra) wherein it was held as follows:- 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that while calculating the dependency, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in deducting the family pension amount. We find that the submission made by the counsel for the appellant is correct. 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 the dependency of the claimants. In the case of Mrs. Helen C. Rebellow and Other vs. Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation and Another, AIR (1998) 3191 this Court has specifically dealt with this question and said that the family pension is earned by 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. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore, the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants. In view of this the appeal is allowed. The order of deduction of the family pension is set aside. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled for an amount of Rs. There is no co-relation between the two and therefore, the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants. In view of this the appeal is allowed. The order of deduction of the family pension is set aside. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,27,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the filing of the petition. He has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company vs. Renu Bala, (2005) 1 RCR (Civil) 514 and another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Behari Lal and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 137 , in this regard. Thus, the matter having been authoritatively adjudicated upon, in the decision aforesaid of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Lal Deis' case, accordingly, family pension that is being received by appellant No.1 is not allowable to be deducted from the income of the deceased. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the law settled on the issue as of today, this appeal needs to be at least partly allowed, in view of what is detailed herein-under. 7. The Tribunal, while accepting the income as proved by the salary certificate of the deceased, did not add the future prospects of the income of the deceased, as he was likely to earn, had he remained alive. Considering that the loss of future income was considered and given effect to while determining compensation even before a formula/fixed methodology came to be settled in Sarla Vermas' case (supra), as is obvious from a reading of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Tomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 , the Tribunal should have taken the same into account at least in the present case, where the deceased was only 38 years old and was a Sanskrit Teacher in a permanent Government job. Be that as it may, applying the ratio of the judgment in case of Rajesh and others (supra), it is held that the deceased, being 38 years of age, 50% of his salary as accepted at the time of his death, should have been added as prospects of future income, while calculating his total income and consequent loss of income to the appellants. As such, the income of the deceased being Rs. 11,940/-, Rs. 5,970/- being 50% of the salary, would need to be added as part of his monthly income after taking into account future prospects of his earning such income, had he remained alive. As such, his monthly income is to be taken to be Rs. 17,910/- for the purpose of determining compensation to the appellants. 8. Coming now to the deduction from the above amount, on account of personal expenses which the deceased would have incurred upon himself had he remained alive. As settled in Sarla Vermas' case (supra), the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, from his total income, should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, as in the present case, where the claimants, i.e. the present appellants, are his widow and 2 minor sons. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly applied a cut of 1/3rd to the income as assessed by it. As such, applying the ratio of Sarla Vermas' case (supra), a 1/3rd deduction on the total income of Rs. 17,910/- per month is applied as the personal expenses that the deceased would have incurred on himself. The loss of income to the appellants is, thus, assessed as Rs. 11,940/-. (Factually, 1/3rd of Rs. 17,910/- is also Rs. 5,970/- as is 50% of Rs. 11,940/-. Therefore, after increasing the deceaseds' actual income by 50% on account of future prospects of earning it, and deducting 1/3rd thereof towards his personal living expenses, the figure arrived at as the loss of income to the appellants, is also Rs. 11,940/- which was the last salary drawn by the deceased). 9. Coming to the multiplier which is to be applied, to arrive at a final figure of the total loss of income which is to be granted as compensation to the appellants. Again going back to the Sarla Vermas' case, it is seen that for the age group of 36 to 40 years, a multiplier of 15 has been laid down by the Apex Court. Again going back to the Sarla Vermas' case, it is seen that for the age group of 36 to 40 years, a multiplier of 15 has been laid down by the Apex Court. In the present case, as a matter of fact, the Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 16 to arrive at the total compensation under this head and though there is no appeal by the respondents to this finding, however since this Court is obviously bound to follow the ratio of law laid down, it would be inappropriate to not reduce the multiplier as has been laid down. As such, a multiplier of 15 is applied to the annual income, assessed. The sum that one consequently comes to is Rs. 11,940 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 21,49,200/-. 10. Next coming to the loss of consortium to be awarded to appellant No.1, on account of the death of her husband in the accident, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under this head, which, as per the law presently prevailing, as determined from the ratio of the judgment in Rajesh and Others case (supra) and Vimal Kanwar and Others case, is to be enhanced to Rs. 1 lac and is accordingly enhanced. 11. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 2,000/- on account of transportation charges and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Mr. Sandhu has argued that the deceased, before his death, was transported to 3 hospitals and after his death obviously his body was transported to his home. This is also discernible from the facts as narrated in the Award passed by the Tribunal. However, since funeral expenses of Rs. 25,000/- are now being awarded, as per ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above, no further enhancement of transportation expenses is called for. 12. Coming next to the loss of love and affection and care and guidance to the 2 minor children of the deceased, Mr. Sandhu submitted that as per the judgment in Vimal Kanwar and Others case (supra), the daughter in that case was awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and, in addition to loss of consortium, the widow was also awarded Rs. 2 lacs and the mother of the deceased in that case was awarded Rs. 1 lac. However, it is seen that in Rajesh and Others case (supra) a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and, in addition to loss of consortium, the widow was also awarded Rs. 2 lacs and the mother of the deceased in that case was awarded Rs. 1 lac. However, it is seen that in Rajesh and Others case (supra) a sum of Rs. 1 lac was awarded towards loss of care and guidance to minor children. Hence, keeping in view the above, Rs. 1 lac is awarded to each of the 2 minor children, i.e. appellants No.2 and 3, under the head of loss of love and affection and care and guidance, even though, considering that they would obviously be very young children keeping in mind the age of the deceased, such sum is per se not wholly adequate. Still, since the compensation on account of pecuniary loss has been enhanced considerably, it is felt appropriate to limit the compensation under this head to a sum of Rs. 1 lac per minor child. As no specific averment was made before the Tribunal with regard to expenses on account of medicines purchased after the accident and before the death of the deceased, nothing can be awarded under that head. Infact, no such medical bills have been placed on record even before this Court. Thus the total amount of compensation now awarded comes to Rs. 24,76,200, i.e. (Rs. 21,49,200/- loss of income, + Rs. 1,00,000/- consortium, + Rs. 2,000/- transportation charges, + Rs. 25,000/- funeral expenses, + Rs. 1,00,000/- each for loss of care and guidance to both minor children), which is Rs. 17,20,056/- over and above the Rs. 7,59,144/- awarded by the Tribunal. Since the enhancement is considerable, the interest thereon is pegged down to 6% p.a. The total amount thus payable to the appellants, would be paid in equal shares to them, initially by way of fixed deposits in a nationalized bank, for a period of 1 year at least. The appeal is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.