JUDGMENT Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. - The instant appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation has been preferred by the claimant-appellants against the judgment and award dated 14.06.2011 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2), Beawar, (in short the 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.46/2011 (115/2009) (Neenu @ Neena & Ors. vs. Sonaram & Ors.), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,88,267/- 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 26.01.2009 at about 2.20 PM, Shri Ashutosh Chand Srivastava was waiting for a bus at Jawangarh Mod, for going to Beawar from Bangar Cement, Raas. At that time, one Bus bearing No.RJ-36-PA-0493 came there. While Ashutosh was trying to get into the bus, suddenly driver of the bus moved the bus rashly and negligently at excessive speed, resultantly Ashutosh fell down and he died on the spot. An FIR No.19/2009 was registered at Police Station, Raas. Police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet against the non-claimant/respondent No.1 for the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC. 3. The claimant-appellants being widow, minor daughter and parents of the deceased, have filed the claim petition under Section 166 & 140 of the Act of 1988 for compensation of Rs..1,99,40,000/-. It is averred in the claim petition that Late Shri Ashutosh was 38 years aged at the time of the accident and he was employed as Deputy Manager in Shree Cement Ltd., Beawar, and his income was Rs..60,000/- per month. It is also averred that non-claimant/respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, and the same was owned by non-claimant/ respondent No.2 and was insured with non-claimant/ respondent No.3, therefore, all the non-claimants are responsible for payment of compensation to the claimants. 4. On 20.02.2010, the proceedings were dropped against the non-claimant/respondent No.1 at the request of the claimant-appellants. 5. 4. On 20.02.2010, the proceedings were dropped against the non-claimant/respondent No.1 at the request of the claimant-appellants. 5. The non-claimant/respondent No.2 filed reply admitting the fact of accident, registration of FIR, registration number of bus involved in the accident and names of Driver, Owner and Insurer of the Bus, and denied all other material averments of the claim petition stating therin that the deceased himself was negligent in the accident as he was trying to board in a moving bus. In alternative, the deceased is guilty of contributory negligence and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The non-claimant/respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed separate reply 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. 7. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues. The claimants examined AW.1- Neenu and exhibited as many as 13 documents in support of the claim petition. The non-claimant/Insurance Company examined NAW.1-Prathvi Raj Singh and exhibited two documents in evidence. 8. 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 bus No.RJ-36-PA-0493 by it's driver/non-claimant No.1 resultantly Shri Ashutosh Chand died on the spot. Issue Nos.3 & 4 have been decided together against the non-claimants and in favour of the claimants in the manner that non-claimant No.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and he was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. Issue Nos.2 & 5 have been decided partly in favour of the claimants and Rs. 25,88,267/- has been awarded to the claimants in different heads, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the payment. Learned Tribunal passed the award against non-claimant/respondent No.2 & 3 only and exonerated non-claimant/respondent No.1 9. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal on 14.06.2011, the claimant/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 10. Mr. Learned Tribunal passed the award against non-claimant/respondent No.2 & 3 only and exonerated non-claimant/respondent No.1 9. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal on 14.06.2011, the claimant/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 10. Mr. Rajkumar Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,74,100/- per annum only, whereas it is proved from Form No.16 that gross salary of the deceased for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 was Rs. 3,11,584/-. Thus, the amount of compensation ought to have been calculated accordingly. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects of the deceased, whereas it is proved that the deceased-Ashutosh Chand was employed in Shree Cement Ltd., Beawar and his employment was of permanent nature. 12. Learned counsel also submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in deducting ^rd income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses. Shri Ashutosh Chand died leaving behind him his wife, minor daughter and parents total four in number. Looking to the number of dependents of the deceased, only 1 /4th of the income of the deceased ought to have been deducted towards his personal and living expenses, therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified in this respect. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- each to daughter and parents for the loss of love and affection, and Rs. 5,000/- only towards funeral expenses, whereas atleast Rs. 70,000/- ought to have been awarded towards conventional heads, as decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. 14. 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. 15. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on judgments of (i) 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 15. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on judgments of (i) 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (ii) 2017 (2) RAR 147 (SC) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (iii) (2015) 2 SCC 764 . Kalpanaraj and Ors. v Tamilnadu State Transport corpn. (iv) 2015 (1) RAR (SC) 52 Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur, (v) 2015 (1) TAC 337 (SC) Kan Singh & Anr. vs. Tukaram & Ors. 16. Per contra, Mr. R. P. Vijay, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,74,100/-per annum and calculated the amount of compensation accordingly which is just and reasonable. Learned counsel also submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly deducted Rs. 37484/- from gross salary of the deceased towards H.R.A. and Conveyance Allowance and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of substance. 17. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 18. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to age of the deceased-Ashutosh Chand to be 43 years. His PAN card is available on record, which shows his date of birth to be 28.04.1965, thus at the time of the accident, he was about 43 years of age. 19. It reveals from the record of learned Tribunal that learned counsel for the Insurance Company sent a notice (Ex A-2) to learned counsel for the claimants on 23.03.2011 demanding him to produce certificate relating to salary and Income Tax Return of the deceased. Then, the claimants submitted copy of acknowledgment of Income Tax Return of the deceased along with Certificate in Form No. 16 regarding Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by his employer for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, which is the period prior to the accident. According to the certificate (Form No. 16), gross salary of the deceased for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 was Rs. According to the certificate (Form No. 16), gross salary of the deceased for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 was Rs. 311584/- per annum and employer of the deceased calculated taxable income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,74,100/-after deducting Rs. 1600/- and Rs. 35884/-towards Conveyance Allowance and H.R.A. respectively, which are exempted under section 10 of Income Tax Act, 1961. After taking note of the investments under Section 80-C of the Act of 1961, employer of the deceased, has deducted Rs..9085/- as TDS and issued the certificate. 20. In Kalpanaraj and Ors. vs. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 764 (supra) , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that House Rent Allowance is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased, but for his untimely death, the claimants are deprived of such benefit which they would have enjoyed if the deceased is alive. 21. Amount of Conveyance allowance Rs. 1600/- was paid to the deceased by virtue of his vocation need not to be included in the salary. But in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kalpanaraj and ors.(supra), amount of HRA Rs. 35884/- ought to have been included in the salary, because the amount of House Rent Allowance is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased. For untimely death, claimants are deprived of the benefit of HRA, which they would have enjoyed if Ashutosh Chand would have been alive. 22. In view of the above, income of the deceased-Ashutosh Chand for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 comes to .3,09,984/- (Rs.3,11,584 - Rs. 1600/- of conveyance allowance). Ashutosh Chand died in the accident occurred on 26.01.2009, therefore, amount of compensation ought to have been calculated taking his income to be Rs..3,09,984/- per annum. 23. It is not disputed that job of the deceased-Ashutosh was of permanent nature. There were chances of his promotion and consequent increase in his salary by way of annual increments and revision in pay. Therefore, looking to the age of the deceased, under the head of future prospects, an addition of 30% of annual income of the deceased should have been done, as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors (supra). Thus, total loss of income comes to Rs..4,02,979/-per annum [Rs.3,09,984/- + Rs. 92,995/- (30% of Rs. 3,09,984/-)]. 24. The deceased-Ashutosh Chand was married. Thus, total loss of income comes to Rs..4,02,979/-per annum [Rs.3,09,984/- + Rs. 92,995/- (30% of Rs. 3,09,984/-)]. 24. The deceased-Ashutosh Chand was married. The claimant-appellant No.1 is widow, appellant No.2 is minor daughter and appellants No.3 & 4 are parents of the deceased. As such, the number of dependent family members was four. Therefore, looking to the number of dependents, deducting 1 /4th (Rs.1,00,745/-) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased himself, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,02,234/- per annum. 25. Looking to the age of the deceased to be 43 years, appropriate multiplier of 14 should have been applied. Thus, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 42,31,276/-(Rs..3,02,234/- X 14). 26. Learned Tribunal has further erred in awarding only Rs. 5000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 5,000/- each to the daughter and parents of the deceased towards loss of love and affection, 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 (supra). 27. Learned Tribunal has awarded interest on awarded amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, whereas interest @9% per annum ought to have been awarded as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kansingh & Anr. vs. Tukaram & Ors reported in 2015 (1) TAC 337 (SC) and Smt. Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar & Ors vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur reported in 2015 (1) RAR (SC) 52.(supra) 28. 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.3,09,984/- p.a. (ii) 30% of above to be added as future prospects. Rs.3,09,984/- + Rs. 92,995/- = Rs..4,02,979/-p.a. (iii) % of (ii) to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.4,02,979/- (-) Rs. 1,00,745/- = Rs. 3,02,234/- (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied [Rs.3,02,234/-X 14] =Rs.42,31,276/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- (vi) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- (viii) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.43,01,276/- 29. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by awarding Rs. 43,01,276/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. 1,00,745/- = Rs. 3,02,234/- (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 14 is applied [Rs.3,02,234/-X 14] =Rs.42,31,276/- (v) Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- (vi) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- (viii) Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.43,01,276/- 29. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by awarding Rs. 43,01,276/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. The non-claimant/respondents No.2 & 3 shall deposit the aforesaid 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.