JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal has arisen out of impugned judgment 28.10.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Beawar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 704/2005 (Old No. 298/2004), whereby an award of Rs.6,80,336/- has been passed in favour of appellants and against the respondents, jointly and severally. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 25.5.2004 at about 8.45 at night when deceased Pratap Singh was coming to his village on Motorcycle No. GJ-9F-4711, a tractor No. RJ-30-R-2602 came from opposite side driven rashly and negligently and hit motorcycle of Pratap Singh, whereby he got injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Claimants are wife and parents of the deceased. They submitted a claim petition before learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.36,01,000/-. Learned Tribunal after hearing, passed the impugned judgment as mentioned hereinabove. The instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the award. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while computing the loss of future income, learned Tribunal has erred in deducting contribution towards Armed Forces Provident Fund (Rs.400/-) and contribution towards Army Group Insurance Fund (Rs.500/-) from gross monthly salary of the deceased who was member of Armed Forces. In support, he has placed reliance on Vimal Kanwar and Others v. Kishore Dan and Others, 2013 ACJ 1441 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and Ors., 2008 ACJ 614 . 4. Learned counsel further submitted that while computing loss of income, future prospects with regard to increase in the income was not considered at all. Relying upon Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 ACJ 1298 , he submitted that at least 50% of the salary last drawn by the deceased must be added for the purpose of loss of future increase in the income. 5. While assailing the meager amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5000/-, respectively, in the head of funeral and loss of love & affection awarded by learned Tribunal, learned counsel submitted that in accordance with the view of Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar's case (supra), the amount should have been Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the dependent claimants. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that in the head of consortium, no award has been passed in favour of wife of the deceased, it should have also been at least Rs.1,00,000/- according to Vimal Kanwar's case (supra). 6. Learned counsel further submitted that in the head of consortium, no award has been passed in favour of wife of the deceased, it should have also been at least Rs.1,00,000/- according to Vimal Kanwar's case (supra). 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation must be just and fair, which may vary in case to case depending upon income of the deceased social status number of dependents and many other factors. Award of Rs.6,80,336/- passed in the instant matter to compensate death of a soldier, cannot be said to be unfair or unjust. The accident occurred in the year 2004 and the impugned award was passed in the year 2006. At that time, as per dictum of Apex Court prevalent, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- were awarded in the head of funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- was awarded in the head of loss of love & affection. Vimal Kanwar's case (supra), Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) and Indira Srivastava's case (supra) are all have been decided later on. By the afflux of time, standards set out by higher courts for grant of compensation in different head, becomes redundant and require re-visits in view of the changed price index and inflation. The norms prescribed in the year 2015 or 2016 cannot be applied in a matter of accident taken place in the year 2004. The compensation is to be decided on the basis of price index and inflation prevalent at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned award, which is quite just and fair. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. As per salary certificate (Ex.P-8), last pay and allowance drawn by Pratap Singh were in total Rs.5,851/-. In Vimal Kanwar's case (supra), Apex Court has held that contribution towards provident fund and insurance, cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage which requires deductions from the gross salary of the deceased. Therefore, deductions of Rs.400/- + Rs.500/- = Rs.900/- from the gross salary by the Tribunal, cannot be upheld. 10. In Vimal Kanwar's case (supra), Apex Court has held that contribution towards provident fund and insurance, cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage which requires deductions from the gross salary of the deceased. Therefore, deductions of Rs.400/- + Rs.500/- = Rs.900/- from the gross salary by the Tribunal, cannot be upheld. 10. In Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), after considering the imponderables and uncertainties, it was held as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% 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, should be made. In the instant matter, learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect of loss of future increase in the income of the deceased. Considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,851/- i.e. Rs.2925 must be added to compensate future increase in the income. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to be Rs.5,851/- + Rs.2,925/- = Rs.8776/-. 11. In view of the cited judgments of Apex Court, the award passed by learned Tribunal in the head of loss of love & affection and funeral expenses appears to be at quite lower side. For the loss of love & affection to father and mother Rs.25,000/-, should be awarded to each of them. To meet out the funeral expenses, the compensation of Rs.25,000/-, instead of Rs.2,000/-, finds favour with this court. 12. So far as loss of of consortium is concerned, young widow of the deceased, a soldier deserves a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 13. In Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been held as follows: “Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” 14. In the instant matter, the accident is of the year 2004 and the judgments of Apex Court cited, are of the year 2007 to 2013. 15. In my view, enhancement in compensation as observed above, are necessary to make the compensation in favour of the appellants as “just and fair”. 16. In the instant matter, the accident is of the year 2004 and the judgments of Apex Court cited, are of the year 2007 to 2013. 15. In my view, enhancement in compensation as observed above, are necessary to make the compensation in favour of the appellants as “just and fair”. 16. Thus, the computation of the loss of income and future increase in the income may be calculated as follows: Loss of income and future prospects:- out of Salary, 8776 x 12 = 105312 per annum, a deduction of 1/3 as personal expenses is to be made. Therefore, annual loss in this head comes out as Rs.105312/- – (105312/3) = Rs.70208/- Applying multiplier of 17, the total dependency loss is Rs.70208 x 17 = 1193536. 17. In the result, the compensation awarded in different heads by the Tribunal and enhanced by this court are as under:- S. No. HEAD AWARDED BY TRIBUNAL AWARDED BY THIS COURT 1. Loss of income and future prospects Rs.6,73,336 Rs.11,93,536 2. Loss of love & affection Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3. Loss of consortium (wife) ----- Rs.1,00,000/- 4 Funeral Rs.2,000/- Rs.25,000/- TOTAL Rs.6,80,336/- Rs.13,68,536/- 18. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants is enhanced by Rs.6,88,200/- as detailed out above. The appellants will be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim application, till the date of realisation. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the above said terms. The enhanced compensation awarded shall be apportioned amongst the appellants in the ratio of 60% to the widow and 20% each to the parents. Half of the compensation payable to each claimants shall be invested in Fixed Term Deposits of Nationalised Bank. The respondent No. 5 shall either pay the amount of compensation by way of Demand Draft/s in favour of the appellants or deposit the same with interest as awarded, even on the enhanced compensation, before the Tribunal after deducting the amount already paid to the appellants within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.