JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 5-8-2015, passed in MVC No. 15/2014, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 7,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claim of Rs. 22,36,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Shekhara, in the road 1 traffic accident is inadequate. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are : The appellants are the wife, two minor children and father of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 22,36,000/- against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 24-12-2013 at about 11.15 p.m. deceased was going on the Motor bike bearing Reg. No. KA.45.J.891 from Hunsur to Mysore and when he came near Old B.M. Road, Hunsur Town, at that time, driver of KSRTC bus bearing KA.09.F.4409 came in a rash and negligent manner from Mysore side and dashed against the said motorbike. Due to which, deceased sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body and succumbed to the same at the spot. It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged between 29 to 30 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, doing coolie work and getting the income of Rs. 400/- per month 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 the compensation of Rs. 7,15,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 4. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation. 6. 7,15,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 4. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation. 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month on the ground that, accident has occurred in the year 2013 and deceased was the only earning member in the family, aged between 29-30 years as on the date of the accident, doing collie work and on account of his untimely death, wife has lost her companion, minor children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father at their young age and father has suffered mental shock and agony and his death has also affected the social and economic condition of the family. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while assessing his income. Therefore, she submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed between Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 8,500/- per month, after deducting l/4th towards personal and living expenses and applying 17' multiplier, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further she submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded at 6% p.a. is on the lower side and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court and the same is liable to be enhanced reasonably. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation. 7. As against this, learned counsel Sri. F.S. Dabali, appearing for respondent-Corporation, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has justified in awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventions head and therefore, it does not call for interference. 8. 7. As against this, learned counsel Sri. F.S. Dabali, appearing for respondent-Corporation, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file has justified in awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventions head and therefore, it does not call for interference. 8. After hearing learned counsel appealing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at 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. Occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was aged between 29 to 30 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, only earning member in the family and doing coolie work and the dependants are his wife, two minor children and father. The Tribunal, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. Having regard to the age, occupation of the deceased and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 8,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if the (Rs. 2,000/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family comes to Rs 6,000/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is 17' since deceased was aged between 29 to 30 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case. Therefore, we determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,24,000/- (Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x 17) instead of Rs. 6,79,932/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 10. The compensation awarded towards conventional heads and 6% interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for appellants. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, who was the only earning member in the family, appellant No. 1 wife has lost her companion at her young age of 25 years, appellant Nos. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, who was the only earning member in the family, appellant No. 1 wife has lost her companion at her young age of 25 years, appellant Nos. 2 and 3, minor children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and appellant No. 4 father of the deceased has suffered mental shock and agony. Therefore having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award a sum Rs. 1,00,000/- to wards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- to wards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 4, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,74,000/- instead of Rs. 7,15,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2013. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation on the entire compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 5-8-2015, passed in MVC No. 15/2014, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 14,74,000/- instead of Rs. 7,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 7,59,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. on the entire compensation from the date of petition till its realization. 13. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation submitted that, Corporation has paid interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant No. 1, immediately after the accident and therefore, a direction may be issued to the corporation to deposit the compensation amount after deducting the interim compensation paid by it. The said submission is placed on record. 14. 13. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation submitted that, Corporation has paid interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant No. 1, immediately after the accident and therefore, a direction may be issued to the corporation to deposit the compensation amount after deducting the interim compensation paid by it. The said submission is placed on record. 14. Respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 9% p.a. on the entire compensation from the date of petition till its realisation excluding the interim compensation if any paid by it, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 15. Immediately on such deposit by the respondent-Corporation, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,59,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 10 years, renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. 16. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, till they attain 22 years for their welfare and from 23 years to 30 years, they are at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. 17. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 4, father of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 05 years, with liberty reserved to him to withdrawn the interest accrued on it, periodically. 18. Remaining sum of Rs. 1,59,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 4 in equal proportion immediately. 19. Draw the award accordingly.