JUDGMENT : M. GOVINDARAJ, J. 1. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation of Rs. 20,11,000, awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai, passed in MCOP No. 5109 of 2012, dated 4.3.2015, the claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement. Award is mainly challenged on the ground that the monthly income of the deceased, fixed by the Tribunal, is on the lower side. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased was working as Officer-Commercial in Sauter Race Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Chennai and earned Rs. 25,162 per month. In support of the said statement, salary slip for the month of May 2012 has been marked as Exh. P8, with objections. 2. Upon perusal of the same, the Claims Tribunal found that the salary slip was issued by Sauter Race Technologies Pvt. Ltd. In order to substantiate the statement and to prove the salary, nobody was examined on the side of the respondents-claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal has refused to rely on Exh. P8, which was marked with objections, for the purpose of fixation of monthly income. The Claims Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs. 9,000. 3. When the matter was taken up for final disposal before this court, learned counsel appearing for the appellants wanted to file a petition to receive additional evidence. Accordingly, he filed CMP No. 7100 of 2017, to receive the bank statement, for the period between 1.1.2010 and 30.6.2012, as additional evidence. Opposing the said petition, the respondent No. 2, insurance company, has filed a counter. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, this court allows the said petition and the document has been received as Exh. P13. 4. Upon perusal of Exh. P13, bank statement of the deceased, it could be deduced that from 10.6.2011, salary has been debited in his account. His initial salary was Rs. 16,317 and for the month of September 2011, the salary debited was Rs. 17,739. However, during the months of October 2011 and December 2011, it was shown as Rs. 19,800. Finally, his last drawn salary for January 2012 is shown as Rs. 18,433. Thereafter, entry made on 1.3.2012 shows that the salary was Rs. 14,967. 5. From the above, we can deduce that the deceased was working in a private company and received a sum of Rs. 16,317 for a longer period. 19,800. Finally, his last drawn salary for January 2012 is shown as Rs. 18,433. Thereafter, entry made on 1.3.2012 shows that the salary was Rs. 14,967. 5. From the above, we can deduce that the deceased was working in a private company and received a sum of Rs. 16,317 for a longer period. Normally, during the month of March, there would be deduction towards income tax and, therefore, we can safely infer that he was earning monthly salary around Rs. 14,967. However, Exh. P8 salary slip, marked before Tribunal, shows that he was drawing a sum of Rs. 23,419. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, insurance company, that the above certificate does not contain any seal and signature to prove its veracity. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly refused to rely on Exh. P8, salary certificate. However, from the bank statement, marked as Exh. P13, it could be deduced that last drawn salary of the deceased, as on 1.3.2012, was Rs. 14,967. 7. The accident had taken place on 21.6.2012. Last salary of the deceased, proximate to the date of accident, can be taken as Rs. 14,967 as against Rs. 9,000, fixed by the Tribunal. By fixing the monthly income as Rs. 9,000, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 18,36,000 under the head loss of contribution to the family. In the present-day consumer price index, a casual labourer is earning Rs. 300 to Rs. 500 per day. Whereas, the bank statement, which is marked as Exh. P13, shows the salary of the deceased as Rs. 14,967 per month. Exh. P8, salary certificate, marked by the claimants, shows that there was deduction towards Provident Fund, Professional Tax, PPS and other deductions and, therefore, we could reasonably fix the monthly income as Rs. 15,000, after the statutory deductions. 8. On the date of accident, deceased was aged 29 years. The Tribunal, on the basis of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), has rightly found that 50 per cent can be added for future prospects. Since we fixed the monthly salary as Rs. 15,000, as per Exh. P13, by adding 50 per cent for future prospects, the income is calculated at Rs. 22,500 (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 7,500), as income of the deceased, at the time of death. Thus, annual income is arrived at Rs. 2,70,000 (Rs. 22,500 x 12). 9. Since we fixed the monthly salary as Rs. 15,000, as per Exh. P13, by adding 50 per cent for future prospects, the income is calculated at Rs. 22,500 (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 7,500), as income of the deceased, at the time of death. Thus, annual income is arrived at Rs. 2,70,000 (Rs. 22,500 x 12). 9. For the Financial Year 2012-13, income tax exemption was given up to Rs. 2,00,000 and, therefore, the income drawn by the deceased will not attract any income tax. Therefore, for the purpose of loss of contribution to the family, we propose to calculate the income, without any deduction, towards income tax. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 29 years. Following the decision made in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), corresponding to the age of the deceased, the Tribunal applied 17' multiplier. Applying the said multiplier to the income of the deceased, the loss of annual income works out to Rs. 45,90,000. The wife and mother of the deceased are the claimants. Therefore, 1/3rd deduction has to be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd towards the same, loss of contribution to the family works out to Rs. 30,60,000. 10. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 50,000 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under the above heads is just and reasonable and in terms of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC), which does not require any interference. 11. However, the Claims Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards transportation, loss to estate and conventional damages. Therefore, we are inclined to award Rs. 10,000 towards transportation, Rs. 10,000 for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000 towards damage to clothes and articles. Thus, the compensation is now re-worked to Rs. 33,07,000, as under: Loss of contribution to the family Rs.30,60,000 Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000 Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000 Transportation Rs.10,000 Loss to estate Rs.10,000 Damaged to clothes and articles Rs.2,000 Total Rs.33,70,000 In view of the above, this civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. After refixation of the monthly salary, the compensation amount is now increased by Rs. 12,96,000. Out of total compensation now determined by this court, a sum of Rs. 7,96,000 is apportioned to the wife and Rs. After refixation of the monthly salary, the compensation amount is now increased by Rs. 12,96,000. Out of total compensation now determined by this court, a sum of Rs. 7,96,000 is apportioned to the wife and Rs. 5,00,000 is apportioned to the mother. The respondent No. 2, insurance company, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, now determined by this court, less the amount already deposited, with proportionate interest and accrued costs, to the credit of MCOP No. 5109 of 2012, on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, after making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.