JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.7.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, HP, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short, in MAC Petition No. 58-S/2 of 2011, titled Smt. Neem Kala and Others vs. Forest Department through Secretary Forest Govt. of HP and Another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.10,56,000/- with cost to the tune of Rs.5000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the Forest department was saddled with the liability, with direction to deposit the amount of compensation within 45 days from the date of impugned award failing which, respondents were directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum, for short “the impugned award” on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Respondents-Forest Department has not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus the same has attained the finality, so far as it relates to the department. 3. Claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the amount awarded is inadequate. The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons. 4. Admittedly, the deceased was a government employee, drawing monthly salary of Rs.26,886/- per month, as per salary certificate Ext. PW5/C, which stands duly proved and accepted by the Tribunal in paras 17 and 18 of the impugned award. The Tribunal, however, has fallen in an error in deducting the family pension payable after the retirement, that too, after ten years, which is legally not correct. The deceased, at the relevant point of time was in service and was 48 years of age. The family pension cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants, in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in Lal Dei and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2008 ACJ 1107. It is apt to reproduce para 4 of the said judgment herein. “4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that while calculating the dependency, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in deducting the family pension amount. We find that the submission made by the counsel for the appellants is correct. “4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that while calculating the dependency, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in deducting the family pension amount. We find that the submission made by the counsel for the appellants is correct. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the High Court could not have deducted the amount of family pension given to the family while calculating the dependency of the claimants. In Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), this court has specifically dealt with this question and said that the family pension is earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. There is no co-relation between the two and, therefore, the family pension amount paid to the family cannot be deducted while calculating the compensation awarded to the claimants. In view of this, the appeal is allowed. The order of deduction of the family pension is set aside. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled for an amount of Rs.10,27,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the filing of the petition.” 5. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas 1/4th was to be deducted as the claimants are five in number. Thus, the claimants have lost dependency to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month. The deceased was 48 years of age at the time accident and the multiplier applicable is “10” in view of the 2nd Schedule attached to the Act, read with Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Thus, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.20,000 x 12 x 10 = Rs.24,00,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to compensation under the following four heads:- (i) Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- (iv) Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. The claimants are also entitled to compensation under the following four heads:- (i) Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- (iv) Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 40,000/- In all the claimants are entitled to Rs.24,00,000/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.24,40,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of impugned award till its realization. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove. 7. Respondents-Department is directed to deposit the amount within three months from today and on deposit the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank accounts, after proper identification. 8. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.