JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The instant appeal stands directed, against, the award pronounced, by, the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kullu, upon MAC petition bearing No. 32 of 2015, whereunder, the learned Tribunal hence adjudged compensation vis-a-vis, the LRs of deceased one Dorje, who met his end, in an accident caused, by the rash and negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle. The quantum, of, compensation amount, adjudged thereunder vis-a-vis the legal heirs, of, deceased Ravinder Mohammad, is, constituted in a sum of Rs. 33,51,100/- and, interest at the rate of 9% per annum, is, levied thereon, accrual whereof thereon is ordered to commence, from, the date of petition, uptill, its deposit. The compensation amount has been apportioned, amongst, the claimants, in the hereafter extracted manner:- "Petitioner No. 1 = Rs. 15,00,000- Petitioner No. 2 = Rs. 6,00,000/- Petitioner No. 3 = Rs. 6,00,000/- Petitioner No. 4 = Rs. 6,51,000/- 2. The apt indemnificatory liability thereof, has been fastened, upon the Chief Medical Officer, Keylong. The Chief Medical Officer, is, not aggrieved by the findings, returned by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned, upon the issue, appertaining to the ill fated accident, involving the offending vehicle, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving, by, its driver. The only grievance, ventilated before this Court, by the learned Deputy Advocate General, is, grounded, upon the factum, (i) that despite PW-1 Palzom, widow of the deceased, and, mother of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, making a firm testification, in her examination-in-chief (ii) that qua one Shakuntla, her daughter being married, (iii) thereupon, obviously hers being not dependent, upon, the income of her deceased father, rather hers being dependent upon the income of her husband, (iii) thereupon the exposition of law, carried in a rendition, of, the Honble Apex Court, pronounced in case titled as Sarla Verma, and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 , relevant para 30 is extracted hereinafter, being visibly transgressed: "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1 / 3 rd ) where the number of the dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (l/4 th ) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1 / 5 th ) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six." (i) conspicuously when therein it is expounded, qua, when the numerical strength of the dependants of the deceased is upto 4, thereupon l/4 th deductions, vis-a-vis the figure of annual dependency, as computed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned, being meted thereto, (ii) especially towards the deceaseds personal expenses. The aforesaid submission has force, (iii) as the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not borne in mind, the, aforesaid factum, borne in the examination-in-chief, of, the mother of the claimants No. 2 to 4, nor the afore- extracted apt portion, of, the apt verdict (supra) (iv) whereas, upon the aforesaid echoing(s), being borne in mind, thereupon the number, of dependents, of the deceased, at the time contemporaneous to his demise, would be less than 4, and, inevitably hence vis-a-vis, the, figure of annual dependency, rather 1 / 3 rd deductions being visitable. 3. Consequently, after, meteing the apt permissible 1 / 3 rd deductions, from, the figure of annual dependency, as computed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, especially, towards the personal expenses of the deceased, thereupon the apposite figure is reckonable at Rs. 26580 ( last drawn salary) + Rs. 3987 (future prospects) = 30,567-10,189/ (l/3 rd deductions)=20,378/-. Consequently, the monthly income of the deceased is, worked out, at Rs. 20,378/- In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs. 20,378x12 = Rs. 2,44,536/- After applying thereon, the, apposite multiplier of 11, the total compensation amount, is assessed, in, a sum of Rs. 26,89, 896/-. 4. However, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 20,378/- In sequel whereto, the annual dependency, of the dependents, upon, the income of the deceased is computed, at Rs. 20,378x12 = Rs. 2,44,536/- After applying thereon, the, apposite multiplier of 11, the total compensation amount, is assessed, in, a sum of Rs. 26,89, 896/-. 4. However, the quantification, of damages, by the learned Tribunal in a sum of Rs. 1 lacs (i) under the head, loss of consortium, and loss of estate (ii) and quantification, of compensation in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- vis-a-vis the claimants, under the head, funeral expenses is (a) in, conflict with the mandate of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in Pranay Sethi''s case (supra), (b) wherein, it has been expostulated, that reasonable figures, under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses being quantified only upto Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, (iii) and, with no expostulation occurring therein vis-a-vis the compensation amount(s), being awardable, to the widow, and, to the offspring(s) of the deceased, especially under the head, loss of love and affection, hence reliefs in respect thereto stands hence impermissibly granted. Consequently, the award of the learned tribunal is interfered, to the extent aforesaid, of, its determining compensation, under, the aforesaid heads vis-a-vis the widow of the deceased, as also, vis-a-vis the off springs, and, widow of the deceased. 5. Accordingly, in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 26,89,896/-, the claimants, are, entitled under conventional heads, namely, loss to estate, loss of consortium, and, funeral expenses, sums of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, as such, the total compensation whereto the respondents are entitled comes to Rs. 26,89,896/-+ 15,000/- + 40,000/- + 15,000/-= Rs. 27,59,896/-(Rs. Twenty seven lacs, fifty nine thousand, eight hundred ninety six only). 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the State is partly allowed and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimants, are, held entitled to a total compensation of 27,59,896/- along with pending and future interest @ 9 %, per annum, from, the date of petition till deposit of awarded amount, in the following terms: 1. Loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- only to widow of deceased. 3. Funeral expenses Rs. Accordingly, the claimants, are, held entitled to a total compensation of 27,59,896/- along with pending and future interest @ 9 %, per annum, from, the date of petition till deposit of awarded amount, in the following terms: 1. Loss to estate Rs. 15,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- only to widow of deceased. 3. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/ Compensation amount be apportioned, amongst the claimants in the hereinafter extracted manner:- "Respondent No.l, being entitled to 40% amount along with proportionate interest, loss to estate and consortium as also funeral expenses, and, the remaining amount with proportionate interest shall fall in equal shares to the respondents No. 2 and 3. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.