JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.08.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- as compensation to the appellants-claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 16.04.1998. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants i.e. wife and seven children of the deceased Mohd. Rafique with the averments that the said Mohd. Rafique was working as a Booking Clerk with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC') and was getting salary of Rs.3,283/- per month. Based on the said averments, compensation was sought. 3. Evidence was led by the parties, wherein the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.3,283/- per month, however, in view of the statement of wife Smt. Jubeda Banu that she was getting Rs.2,000/- per month as pension from the RSRTC, the amount was reduced by the Tribunal to Rs.2,000/- only and the dependency was taken at Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, multiplier of 8 was applied looking to the age of the deceased at 50 years and a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/- was awarded towards loss of income, for loss of consortium and love & affection, a lump sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses was awarded. In all a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- along with interest as indicated hereinbefore was awarded. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed error in deducting the amount of pension being received by the wife of the deceased from the amount of compensation and further, the award of compensation is ex facie contrary to the principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 , as no amount towards future prospects has been awarded and the multiplier applied is too low. 5. For the purpose of questioning the validity of deduction of amount of pension, reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors.: (2013) 7 SCC 476 . 6. 5. For the purpose of questioning the validity of deduction of amount of pension, reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v. Kishore Dan & Ors.: (2013) 7 SCC 476 . 6. Further submissions were made that the amount awarded under the head loss of consortium and love & affection to the wife and seven children of the deceased is wholly inadequate and, therefore, the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced adequately. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the material available on record has awarded adequate compensation and the same does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The age of deceased at 50 years, his service as Booking Clerk with RSRTC and his monthly income at Rs.3,283/- are not in dispute and, therefore, the principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) deserves to be applied. 10. So far as the deduction towards the amount of pension being received by wife of the deceased is concerned, the said amount is not liable to be deducted in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra). 11. In view of the above, the amount of compensation towards loss of income deserves to be calculated as under:- Rs.3,283 + 984 (30% as future prospects) = Rs.4267-853 (?th towards personal expenses) = Rs.3414 X 12 X 13 = Rs.5,32,584/- 12. So far as the award of compensation towards loss of consortium and love & affection is concerned, even as per the standards, which were applied in the year 2002, the amount awarded is too low looking to the number of claimants i.e. wife and seven children. 13. In view thereof, the amount towards loss of consortium and love & affection is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 14. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,37,584/-, which is rounded off to Rs.6,37,600/-. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.6,37,600/-. In view thereof, the amount towards loss of consortium and love & affection is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 14. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,37,584/-, which is rounded off to Rs.6,37,600/-. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.6,37,600/-. The appellants would also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. 16. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.4,15,600/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application i.e. 16.04.1998 be paid to the appellant No.1 - Smt. Jubeda Banu only. Out of the total amount along with interest, 25% amount be placed in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years, rest of the amount be paid to the appellant No.1 in her Saving Bank Account. The amount of compensation be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.