JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th January, 2015, passed in MVC No. 6052/2013, by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, XXVIII ACMM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 17,16,500/- awarded in favour of the claimant as against their claim for Rs. 60,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased B.L. Narasimha Murthy. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 11.30 a.m., on 14-10-2013, when the deceased was travelling in Marathi Swift Car bearing Registration No. KA-04/MD-6179 towards Gowribidanur, which was driven by the second respondent at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and when they reached near Bisalahalli village, Manchenahalli Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, at that time, the driver of the said Car lost control over the vehicle and went off the road and dashed against the road side tree. Due to the impact, the deceased and other inmates of the car sustained severe head and bodily injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Gowribidanur, where first aid was given and then shifted to higher treatment to Bengaluru but, unfortunately, on the way to the Hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 3. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 52 years and an employee in a Bank, drawing salary of a sum of Rs. 28,366/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 4. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 20th January, 2015. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 20th January, 2015. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 17,16,500/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the Insurer, for quite sometime. 6. Learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 23,419/- per month, after deducting the professional tax and income-tax. He submits that the deceased was aged about 52 years and a Bank employee, drawing salary of a sum of Rs. 28,366/- per month. But, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal, without any basis has assessed lesser monthly income after deducting income-tax. The same is liable to be re-assessed. He further submits that the deceased was the only earning member in the family and on account of his untimely and unnatural death, the claimants have been put to great financial loss apart from social status. He also submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% per annum is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred during 2013. Therefore, he submitted that, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency, by adopting proper multiplier and deducting ?rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. He also submitted that the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate is on the lower side and therefore, the same be enhanced reasonably, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and also the rate of interest. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also taking into consideration the age and avocation of the deceased and also the year of accident etc. Therefore, interference in the same is not called for. 8. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also taking into consideration the age and avocation of the deceased and also the year of accident etc. Therefore, interference in the same is not called for. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. The undisputed facts of the case are, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased B.L. Narasimha Murthy. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 52 years and working in Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Chikkaballapura as Office Assistant (Multipurpose), drawing salary of a sum of Rs. 28,366/- per month. To substantiate the same, the appellants have examined PW2, the Branch Manager of the Grameena Bank, who has endorsed about the employment and salary of the deceased and also produced Exhibits P11 to P13. They have also produced From No. 16. In spite of these documents coupled with the oral evidence of PW2, the Tribunal is not justified in re-assessing the monthly income at Rs. 23,419/-. The same is liable to be re-assessed and accordingly, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 28,366/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. From this the admissible deductions are income-tax and professional tax. Accordingly, if a sum of Rs. 14,000/- towards income-tax and a sum of Rs. 2,400/- towards professional tax are deducted from annual income of Rs. 3,40,392/- the net annual income works out to 0,23,992/-. Further, as the dependents are three in number, we have to deduct ?rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If ?rd (i.e. Rs. 1,07,997/-) is deducted from 0,23,992/- towards his personal and living expenses, the net annual income would be Rs. 2,15,995/-. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 52 years as on the date of accident. Therefore for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is 11' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ), as rightly adopted by Tribunal. 2,15,995/-. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 52 years as on the date of accident. Therefore for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is 11' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ), as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 23,75,945/-(i.e. X 2,15,995/- x 11') as against Rs. 16,37,500/- awarded by Tribunal. 10. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. The compensation awarded towards conventional heads is liable to be re-determined. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decision, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium as against Rs. 25, 000/-; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against Rs. 20,000/-; Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- to each claimant as against Rs. 39,000/- awarded by Tribunal. However, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and hence, it does not call for interference. 11. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 26,75,945/- as against Rs. 17,16,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 9,59,445/-. 12. Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimants, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 14-10-2013. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 13. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th January, 2015, passed in MVC No. 6052/2013, by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, XXVIII ACMM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 26,75,945/- as against Rs. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th January, 2015, passed in MVC No. 6052/2013, by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, XXVIII ACMM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 26,75,945/- as against Rs. 17,16,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 9,59,445/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 14. The Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,59,445/-, with interest; thereon at 9% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 15. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant-wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. 16. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of second and third appellants-children of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the periodical interest. 17. Remaining sum of Rs. 1,59,445/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No. 1, immediately. 18. Office to draw award, accordingly. 19. Shri Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of Insurer, within four weeks from today.