ORAL ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. This appeal is filed by the dependents of deceased Narayanbhai Solanki, who died in a vehicular accident which took place on 22.03.2014 They seek enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Naramada at Rajpipla in MACP No. 132 of 2014. Since the factum of accident, liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle are not in dispute, we may focus only on the question of compensation which the claimants dispute. Looking to the narrow controversies, we have heard learned Advocate Shri Hakim for the appellant and Shri Palak Thakkar for respondent No. 2-Insurance Company for final disposal of the appeal. They have made available relevant documents and depositions. 2. The claimants are widow, two children and aged father of the deceased. Before the Claims Tribunal, evidence was led to establish that the deceased was employed as driver in one Packwell Industries. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 6,500/- per month from such employment. In support of such claim, the claimants had examined one I Jagdishkumar Parshottambhai Varu at Exh.42 In his deposition, he had pointed out that he was engaged in the business of industrial packing and making and repairing of furniture since the year 2000 in the name of Packwell Industries. His unit was situated in Vadodara and was registered under the Sales Tax Act. He produced necessary documents in this regard. With respect to salary of the deceased, he produced ledger account and the vouchers. These documents showed cash payment of Rs. 6,500/- every month. The ledger account, however, showed unpaid balance of Rs. 70,000/- at the end of the year in addition to the actual cash payment of Rs. 6,500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal, however, believed income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/-, granted 50% rise for the future income, deducted 1/3rd from the sum of Rs. 7,500/- so arrived and considered remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly loss of dependency benefits. It may be noted that the Tribunal did not consider father as dependent. The Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the deceased as suggested by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Varma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The Tribunal that is how arrived at figure of Rs. It may be noted that the Tribunal did not consider father as dependent. The Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the deceased as suggested by the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Varma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The Tribunal that is how arrived at figure of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of dependency benefits. The Tribunal then added Rs. 50,000/- each for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the children and loss of estate and further sum of Rs. 25,000/- for post-death ceremonies. The Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs. 7,75,000/-. 3. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, what emerges is that the claimants had established, through reliable evidence, the fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,500/- per month at the time of accident. The evidence of the employer was backed by documentary evidence. The payment of Rs. 6,500/- was duly accounted for in the accounts of the employer. There is no reason to thereafter modify such amount. We may recall that in the ledger account, the employer had shown pending payments and perhaps tried to show that the actual salary of the deceased was more than Rs. 6,500/-. This factor, however, we may discard since all contemporaneous documents show that the deceased had received Rs. 6,500/- for every month of service and no more. To this, we may add 40% for future rise in income as held by the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ, 2700. The prospective income of the deceased would therefore come to Rs. 9,100/- per month. 4. The Tribunal, however, committed an error in not considering father as a dependent. As per record, the father was aged 85 years. There is nothing to suggest that he had any other source of income or any other sibling of the deceased was supporting him. Looking to number of dependents, including father as per the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Varma (supra), 1/4th of the monthly income would be attributed to the personal expenditure of the deceased. Out of Rs. 9,100/-, therefore, Rs. 2,275/- would be set apart for the deceased, leaving net of Rs. 6,825/- for the family per month or Rs. 81,900/- per annum. Out of Rs. 9,100/-, therefore, Rs. 2,275/- would be set apart for the deceased, leaving net of Rs. 6,825/- for the family per month or Rs. 81,900/- per annum. Adopting multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency benefits of Rs. 81,900/- multiplied by 15 would come to Rs. 12,28,500/-. To this, we would reduce compensation under conventional heads to Rs. 70,000/- in terms of the judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) instead of Rs. 1,75,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 5. In the result, the claimants would receive total compensation of Rs.12,98,500/- (i.e Rs. 12,28,500/- + Rs. 70,000/-). The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,75,000/-. The claimants would receive additional compensation of Rs. 2,23,500/-, which would be payable by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till actual payment, which may be deposited before the Claims Tribunal with proportionate costs and interest latest by 31.03.2018 The Tribunal shall release 30% from such amount in favour of the claimants and invest remaining 70% amount in Fixed Deposits for five years in Nationalized Bank with recurring interest, which may be paid to the claimants periodically. The award stands modified to this extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.