JUDGMENT Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.: - This is appeal against the award dated 01.05.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (later referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) allowing compensation of Rs. 4,70,800/- for the death of Rajesh (later referred to as ‘the deceased’), husband of appellant No.1, father of appellants No.2 to 4 and son of appellant No.5, in a motor accident with jeep No.HR-66-2538 (later referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). 2. The case of the appellants-claimants, in brief, is that on 06.12.2011, the deceased was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR21C-9370 with Deepak and Jai Kumar from village Budana to Igarh. When they reached in the area of village Khanda Kheri at about 09.00/09.30 p.m., an Alto Car came from opposite side with heavy flood light and the offending vehicle in process of overtaking the Alto car, hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the deceased along with Deepak and Jai Kumar fell on the road and received multiple injuries. Respondent No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, fled away from the spot. The accident was witnessed by Jagmohan, who was travelling in the Alto car. The injured were taken to General Hospital, Jind, but both succumbed to their injuries on the way. Regarding this accident, an FIR No.470 dated 06.12.2011 was registered at Police Station Narnaund. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied the accident. Similar plea was taken by respondent No.3 i.e. insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. On appraisal of the evidence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1. 5. While assessing quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took monthly income of deceased as that of a casual labourer i.e. Rs.4,800/- per month. In view of the age of the deceased, which was 42 years, a multiplier of 14 was applied after making a deduction of 1/4th of his income towards his personal expenses. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded towards funeral and transportation expenses. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as per the observations in Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, [2015(3) Law Herald (SC) 2420 : 2015 LawHerald.Org 1107 : 2015(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2526 (SC)] : 2015(3)RCR (Civil) 447 and Rajesh and others Vs. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as per the observations in Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, [2015(3) Law Herald (SC) 2420 : 2015 LawHerald.Org 1107 : 2015(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2526 (SC)] : 2015(3)RCR (Civil) 447 and Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others, [2013(4) Law Herald (SC) 3006 : 2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2274 (SC)] : (2013)9 SCC 54 , claimants are entitled to addition of 30% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. The Tribunal has not allowed any compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, care and guidance and loss of estate. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- allowed for funeral and transportation expenses is also on lower side. 7. In the case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir and others (supra), a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para 11 as follows:- “11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi’s case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) 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% 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% 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% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 8. The above observations of Hon’ble Apex Court were further affirmed by another three Judges Bench in case of Munna Lal Jain and others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (supra). 9. Appellant-claimant No.1 Kamlesh being wife, claimants No.2 to 4 being children and claimant No.5 being mother of the deceased, are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and affection care and guidance and loss of estate respectively @ Rs.1 lac each. They are also entitled to funeral and transportation expenses @ Rs.25,000/-. 10. Keeping the above factors into account, the claimants are entitled to compensation for the death of Rajesh as follows:- Sl. They are also entitled to funeral and transportation expenses @ Rs.25,000/-. 10. Keeping the above factors into account, the claimants are entitled to compensation for the death of Rajesh as follows:- Sl. Heads Calculation No. (i) Salary Rs.4800 per month (ii) 30% of (i) above to be added as future prospects (Rs.4800+ Rs.1440)= (Rs.6240 per month) (iii) 1/4th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased (Rs.6240- Rs.1560)= Rs.4680 per month (iv) Amount of dependancy after multiplier of 14 is applied (Rs.4680X12X14)= Rs.786240 (v) Loss of consortium Rs.100000 (vi) Loss of care and guidance for minor children Rs.100000 (vii) Loss of estate Rs.100000 (viii) Funeral and transportation expenses Rs.25000 Total Rs.1111240 11. The appeal is accepted. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the compensation allowed to the appellants-claimants is enhanced from Rs.6,24,800/- to Rs.11,11,240/- for the death of Rajesh. The enhanced amount of compensation will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. The amount of enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between the claimants as per the award. Respondent No.3-insurance company will deposit the share of appellantsclaimants in their bank accounts or pay the same through demand drafts. The share of minor Indu-appellant No.4, who as per her age given at the time of filing of the petition is still minor, will be deposited in some nationlized bank as fixed deposit till the period she attains majority. It is, however, made clear that the bank may take the documents regarding the age of the minor as required at the time of deposit of the amount and the minor shall not be asked to bring the fresh order from the Tribunal to get the payment of the amount deposited in her name after the date of attaining majority. The above direction has been issued to save the claimants from unnecessary harassment caused due to directions the bank usually give to bring the order of the Tribunal to get the payment even after attaining the age of majority. The claimants shall also be entitled to costs of this appeal. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs.20,000/-.