JUDGMENT Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant appeal for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimant-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') against the judgment and award dated 27.7.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 460/2009 titled as Smt. Sudha Yadav & Ors. Vs. Raghunath & Ors. whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 14,68,704/- to the claimants/appellants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.2.2008, Shri Dharmendra Kumar Yadav while performing his duty of 'Nakabandi' at check post as Constable of Police Station Kanota, one trolla bearing No. RJ-14-GB-4610 came from Bassi side, which was driven by his driver rashly and negligently and he hit Dharmendra Kumar whereupon Dharmendra Kumar sustained serious injuries in the accident and died on the spot. An FIR No. 84/2008 was registered at Police Station, Kanota. Police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet against the non-claimant-respondent No.1-Raghunath for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. 3. The claimant-appellants being widow, minor son and daughter, and parents of the deceased, have filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 & 140 of the Act of 1988 for compensation of Rs. 54,94,000/-. It is averred in the claim petition that Late Shri Dharmendra Kumar was 30 years aged at the time of the accident and he was employed as Constable in Police Station, Kanota and his income was Rs. 9000/- per month. It is also averred that offending vehicle was owned by non-claimant No.2 and was insured with non-claimant No. 3, therefore, all the non-claimants are responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. 4. Despite service of notice, non-claimant-respondents No.1 & 2 did not choose to file reply to the claim petition and remained absent, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. The non-claimant-respondent No.3 filed reply to the claim petition admitting the fact of insurance as stated in the claim petition and denied all other material averments of the claim petition. 4. Despite service of notice, non-claimant-respondents No.1 & 2 did not choose to file reply to the claim petition and remained absent, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. The non-claimant-respondent No.3 filed reply to the claim petition admitting the fact of insurance as stated in the claim petition and denied all other material averments of the claim petition. It is also stated that non-claimant/respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. The claimants examined AW.1-Sudha Yadav, AW.2-Gopal Lal, AW.3-Hari Prasad and exhibited as many as 23 documents in support of the claim petition. The non-claimant-Insurance-Company did not produce any evidence. 6. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants in the manner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trolla No. RJ-14-GB-4610 by it's driver/non-claimant No.1, and Dharmendra Kumar sustained injuries in the accident and died on the spot. Issue No.2 has been decided in the manner that non-claimant No.1 was driving the vehicle under the employment and for benefit of non-claimant No.2/owner of the vehicle. Issue No.3 has been decided against the Insurance Company and in favour of the claimants for want of evidence. Issues No.4 & 5 have been decided in favour of the claimants and Rs. 14,68,704/- has been awarded to the claimants in different heads. 7. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal on 27.7.2010, the claimant/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. During pendnecy of the appeal, appellant No.4-Sultan Singh (father of the deceased) expired, therefore, his name was deleted from the array of the appellants and amended cause title was taken on record vide order dated 12.9.2011. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in not awarding any amount towards the future prospects of the deceased, whereas it is proved that the deceased Dharmendra Kumar was employed in Police Department of Government of Rajasthan and his employment was of permanent nature and it is also proved that he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 10,689/-. 9. 10,689/-. 9. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses. Shri Dharmendra Kumar died leaving behind him his wife, son, daughter and parents total five in number. Looking to the number of dependents of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought to have deduced only 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses, whereas the learned Tribunal has deduced 1/3rd of his income, therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified in this respect. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2000/- each to son, daughter and parents for the loss of love and affection, and Rs. 2000/- only towards funeral expenses, whereas the claimants are entitled for Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. 11. Learned counsel also contended that learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding interest on the compensation amount @ 6% per annum only, whereas, it is consistent view of Hon'ble the Apex Court, this Hon'ble High Court and other High Courts that interest on compensation amount should have been awarded at least @ 9% per annum. 12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on judgments of Kan Singh & Anr. Vs. Tukaram & Ors., (2015) 1 TAC 337(SC); Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, 2015 1 RAR(SC) 52; Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 2 TAC 677 (SC) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 2 RAR(SC) 147. 13. Per contra, Ms. Sweety Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that deceased-Dhramendra Kumar was 32 years aged at the time of accident, therefore, multiplier of 16 should have been applied as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, whereas the learned Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 17, therefore, compensation should be calculated accordingly and learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of substance. 14. 14. I gave my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased Dharmendra Kumar to be 32 years and he was employed as Constable in Police Station, Kanota, and his income from salary was Rs. 10,689/- per month at the time of the accident. There fore, annual income of the deceased-Dharmendra Kumar comes to Rs. 10689/- X 12 = Rs. 1,28,268/-. 16. There were chances of promotion of the deceased Dharmendra Kumar and consequent increase in his salary by way of annual increments and revision in pay scales. There fore looking to age of the deceased, under the head of future prospects, an addition of 50% of annual income of the deceased-Dharmendra Kumar should have been done, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, 2017 2 RAR (SC) 147. Thus, total loss of income comes to Rs. 1,92,402/- per annum [Rs. 1,28,268/- + Rs. 64,134/- (50% of Rs. 1,28,268/-)]. 17. The deceased-Dharmendra Kumar was married. The claimant-appellant No.1 is widow, appellant No.2 & 3 are minor son and daughter respectively, appellant No.4 is mother of the deceased Dharmendra Kumar Father of the deceased has expired during pendency of the appeal, who was also an appellant. As such, the number of dependent family members were five. There fore, looking to the number of dependents, deducting (Rs. 48,100/-) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased himself, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,44,302/- per annum. Looking to the age of the deceased to be 32 years, appropriate multiplier of 16 should have been applied. Thus, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 23,08,832/- (Rs. 1,44,302 x 16). 18. Learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding only Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses , Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 2,000/- each to the children and parents of the deceased, whereas, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses ought to have been awarded , as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi. 19. 2,000/- each to the children and parents of the deceased, whereas, compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses ought to have been awarded , as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi. 19. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the awarded amount, whereas interest @9% per annum ought to have been awarded as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kansingh & Anr. Vs. Tukaram & Ors, (2015) 1 TAC 337 (SC) and Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, 2015 1 RAR (SC) 52. 20. In view of the discussions made above, the total compensation has to be assessed under the various heads as follows : Sr. No. HEADS CALCULATIONS (i) Income Rs. 10689X12 = Rs. 1,28,268/- p.a. (ii) 50% of above to be added as future prospects. Rs. 1,28,268/- + Rs. 64,134/- = Rs. 1,92,402/- p.a. (iii) of (ii) to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs. 1,92,402/- (-) Rs. 48,100/-/- = Rs. 1,44,302/- (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied [Rs. 1,44,302X16]=Rs. 23,08,832/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- (vi) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- (viii) Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED Rs. 23,78,832/- 21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by awarding Rs. 23,78,832/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. The non-claimant/respondents shall deposit the a foresaid amount jointly and severally with the learned Tribunal, after deducting the amount already paid to the appellants, if any, within eight weeks. No order as to costs.