JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 1.10.2012, passed in MVC No. 8158 of 2009, by the XVI Additional Judge and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-14) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that a sum of Rs. 42,58,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, as against the claim of Rs. 1,01,00,000, on account of the death of the deceased Dr. Ajitkumar Ramagouda Patil, in the road accident is inadequate. In brief, the facts of the case are: The appellants are the wife, daughter, brother and father of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of MV Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of death of the deceased in the road accident, contending that on 9.10.2009 at about 4.15 p.m. deceased was going to Cafe Coffee Day which is near Ajjappanahalli by driving his car bearing registration No. KA 07-M 1191. While he was so driving his car by keeping towards extreme left side of the road with moderate speed, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA 01-B 6187 came from opposite side from Mulbagal side towards Bangalore at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car and caused the accident. Due to this, deceased sustained multiple grievous and fatal head injury and he succumbed to the said injuries. 2. It is the further case of the appellants that deceased was aged about 58 years, hale and hearty prior to the accident, he was M.D. in General Medicine, Member of National Academy of Medical Science, Dean, Faculty of Medicine and Director, Post Graduate Studies of Sri Devraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research, Kolar and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family. 3. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 3. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 42,58,000 under different heads with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for the insurer. 6. The submission of the learned counsel, Mrs. Suguna R. Reddy, appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation for loss of dependency and for conventional heads on account of death of the deceased in the accident and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, she placed reliance on the income tax returns filed by the deceased for the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and submitted that the average income of the deceased for the said assessment years comes to Rs. 10,45,271, after deducting income tax and professional tax and 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying 9' multiplier as he was aged about 58 years, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, she vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads and what is awarded is inadequate and it is liable to be enhanced in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and this court. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, inter alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and, therefore, it does not call for interference. 8. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. 8. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 58 years, hale and hearty prior to the accident, Professor-cum-Dean of Medicine and also holding different posts. He has filed his income tax returns for the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 declaring his income as Rs. 9,65,003 and Rs. 11,25,539 respectively and that has been accepted by the jurisdictional Income Tax Authority. Average income of the deceased for said assessment years comes to Rs. 10,45,271 per annum. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have fairly submitted after going through the records that out of Rs. 10,45,271 per annum, a sum of Rs. 2,17,400 may be deducted towards income tax and professional tax. Accepting the said submission, we deduct a sum of Rs. 2,17,400 towards income tax and professional tax out of Rs. 10,45,271. The remaining income of the deceased comes to Rs. 8,27,871 per annum. There are three dependants who are daughter, mentally disabled brother and aged father of the deceased and, therefore, if 1/3rd (Rs. 2,75,957) is deducted towards his personal and living expenses, remaining annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 5,51,914. Deceased was aged about 58 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 9' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 49,67,226 instead of Rs. 41,97,753 as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 10. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as the daughter is deprived of love and affection, guidance and security of her father, the mentally disabled brother has lost his support and father has lost his son and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this court, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000 to each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 4, Rs. 25,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 25,000 towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 52,17,226 instead of Rs. 42,58,000 awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 9,59,226 with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the date of petition till its realization. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 1.10.2012, passed in MVC No. 8158 of 2009, by the XVI Additional Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-14), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 9,59,226 with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent No. 2, insurer, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,59,226 with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,59,226, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 2, daughter of the deceased, in any nationalised or scheduled or grameen bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 3, in any nationalised or scheduled or grameen bank, for a period of 5 years and renewable by another 5 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 4, the natural guardian of the appellant No. 3, to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, for the welfare of the appellant No. 3. Remaining sum of Rs. 2,59,226 with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 4 in equal proportion immediately. Draw the award accordingly.