JUDGMENT : 1. On the fateful day of May 04, 2009 a motor vehicle type Matador bearing registration No. JK-06-1075 owned by one Alam Geer (owner) and insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd.( Insurance Company) met with an accident at Bhadarkoot at 7.30 a.m. while it was going from Kishtwar to Palmar. The offending vehicle was carrying 36 passengers at the time of accident. As a result of the accident, the offending vehicle rolled down about 400-500 feet from the road. Some of the passengers died on spot and some suffered critical injuries. The injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Kishtwar and subsequently to Govt. Medical College Hospital, Jammu for further treatment. An FIR regarding the accident was also registered as FIR No. 62/2009 for the offences under Section 279/337/338 and 304-A RPC at Police Station, Kishtwar. 2. The legal representatives/heirs of the victims of the accidents who died on spot or later succumbed to the injuries filed their claims. It is stated that 27 claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar whereas 05 claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu. The aforesaid claim petitions also included one claim petition filed by the injured. 3. The 05 claim petitions which were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) were clubbed together and decided by a common award passed on 18.04.2012. It is this award of the Tribunal which is challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing 05 different appeals. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the claimants have also preferred appeals seeking enhancement to the amount of compensation. The appeals filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu have arisen out of the single motor vehicular accidents, as such, all the appeals were heard together. Since the instant appeals have arisen out of the common award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu as these appeals are decided by this common judgment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard at length. 5. During the course of arguments Sh. Since the instant appeals have arisen out of the common award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu as these appeals are decided by this common judgment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard at length. 5. During the course of arguments Sh. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, highlighted and stressed the following grounds to assail the impugned award:- (a) The findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 that the driver-Zakir Hussain was holding a valid driving license on the date of accident are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. (b) The offending vehicle was overloaded and against the seating capacity of fifteen, it was carrying thirty six passengers. This aspect has not been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. (c) The amount of compensation paid to the claimants as also the interest is exorbitant. 6. The first two grounds have already been dealt with in the judgment passed in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar and have been decided against the appellant-Insurance Company. What was held in the aforesaid judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed in a batch of appeals, lead case being MA No. 135/201 would hold good in those matters also. However, the quantum of compensation payable to claimants in each case shall depend upon the evidence led and the determination of question of fact and law raised in cross-appeals. MA No. 313/2012 (File No. 242/Claim) and MA No. 273/2012 7. On the issue of quantum of compensation held payable to the claimants, challenge to the award by the appellant-Insurance Company on quantum has been resisted by the learned counsel for the claimants on the ground that the Insurance Company cannot challenge the award on quantum in the absence of permission granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that for seeking permission to contest the claim petition on quantum in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company has to satisfy the Tribunal that owner and the driver are in collusion with the claimants or that the owner is not contesting the claim or has been set ex-parte. It is submitted that for seeking permission to contest the claim petition on quantum in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company has to satisfy the Tribunal that owner and the driver are in collusion with the claimants or that the owner is not contesting the claim or has been set ex-parte. It is, thus, urged that in the absence of such permission, the Insurance Company can only take defences that are available to it under Sub Section 2 of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed by learned counsel for the claimants on the following judgments:- (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 SC (ii) Rita Devi vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2000 ACJ 801 SC (iii) Chinnama George vs. N.K. Raju, 2005 ACJ 777 SC (iv) Josphine James vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2013 ACJ 2418 SC 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company stated that the aforesaid judgments would have no application in the instant case as the Insurance Company had sought specific permission to contest the claim petition on all grounds in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was also granted by the Tribunal. With a view to verify the veracity of the statement made, I went through the record of the Tribunal and found that the appellant-Insurance Company had filed a specific application seeking permission to contest the claim petition on quantum in terms of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 25.09.2010. 9. That being so, contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Insurance Company cannot assail the award on quantum, is not tenable. 10. In the aforesaid claim petition one Shagufta Wahid died in the accident in question. At the time of accident she was 32 years old. It is claimed that she was employed in Education Department and was drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs. 11,722/-. It was also claimed before the Tribunal that she was doing private tuitions also apart from doing other household works and was earning Rs. 5000 to Rs. 7000/- per month besides receiving her salary. The claimant who is husband of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs. 11,722/-. It was also claimed before the Tribunal that she was doing private tuitions also apart from doing other household works and was earning Rs. 5000 to Rs. 7000/- per month besides receiving her salary. The claimant who is husband of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs. 56,00,000/- under different heads. Since the claim petition was contested by the appellant- Insurance Company, as such, a specific issue in this regard was framed and the burden of proof whereof was put on the claimants. In order to prove the aforesaid issue claimant have led their evidence. 11. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 11,722/-. Taking the age of the deceased as 34 years, as indicated in the post mortem report, applying the guidelines as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the Tribunal added 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects and accordingly, applying the multiplier of 14, computed the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 14,76,972/- which was rounded off to Rs. 14,77000/-. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the claimants:- Loss of dependency Rs. 14,77,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 15,02,000/- 12. Award of the Tribunal has been assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the same is exorbitant as the Tribunal has wrongly enhanced the income of deceased by 50%. It is further submitted that the claimant is husband and was not dependent upon the income of the deceased. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Award of the Tribunal is required to be enhanced on the ground the Tribunal has not taken into consideration revision of pay of the deceased on account of implementation of 6th Pay Commission report by the State Government. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 16, as has been prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 14. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 16, as has been prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 14. I have carefully gone through the award of the Tribunal and the evidence on record and find that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 instead of 16, as has been prescribed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Since the dependent family member was only one, hence the Tribunal was correct in deducting 50% on account of personal living expenses. The Tribunal has rightly added 50% to the income of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. The amounts paid under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are on lower side and to bring them in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 are required to be varied. 15. The plea of the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on account of revision of pay scale of the deceased on account of grant of 6th pay commission’s benefit to the State Government employees is contested by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that in terms of the settled proposition of law in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) compensation has to be computed only with reference to the scale of pay applicable at the time of death and not with reference to any future revision in pay scales. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that for the computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the income of the deceased at the time of death alone is required to be taken into consideration and any increase in the income on account of pay revisions which have taken place subsequent to the death of the deceased is irrelevant. Addition directed to be made in the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in Sarla Verma’s case takes care of the aforesaid fact situation. But, if the pay revision takes place, though, subsequent to the death of the victim of the accident and is given retrospective effect from the date interior to the date of death, benefit of increase of salary on account of aforesaid revision cannot be denied. But, if the pay revision takes place, though, subsequent to the death of the victim of the accident and is given retrospective effect from the date interior to the date of death, benefit of increase of salary on account of aforesaid revision cannot be denied. After all the Tribunal is enjoined to determine the monthly income of the victim of the accident, at the time of accident. The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Jashuben and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 162 held that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of pay revision which takes place after the death but is given retrospective effect. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case while rejecting the claim of the claimants on account of revised salary in paragraph No. 13 held thus:- “13. It is not a case where, as on the date of death, the salary of the deceased was revised with retrospective effect from 1994. Salary would be revised or not was not known at that point of time. Only because such salary was revised at a later point of time, the same by itself would not have been a factor which could have been taken into consideration for determining the amount of compensation. The Tribunal, therefore, committed a serious illegality in taking into consideration the latter aspect.” 17. Although, the claim for the benefit of revised salary was declined by the Supreme Court but while doing so the Supreme court also clarified the law that if the revision takes place retrospectively from the date of death or any date anterior thereto, then the benefit of revision cannot be denied. It was so held in another judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . In the aforesaid case the death had taken place on 05.10.2007 but the revision of pay scale took place on account of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission but retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.2006. The Supreme Court gave the benefit of pay revision to the claimants. The relevant extract of para 19 of the aforesaid judgment where issue has been dealt with is reproduced hereunder:- “19. The Supreme Court gave the benefit of pay revision to the claimants. The relevant extract of para 19 of the aforesaid judgment where issue has been dealt with is reproduced hereunder:- “19. The petitioners have produced before this Court Annexure P-4, salary certificate of the deceased Bijender Singh which shows that after the revision of the salary by the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-2006, the deceased had a monthly salary of Rs. 9520. It is submitted that since the Sixth Pay Commission benefits were announced only subsequently making it to operate retrospectively from 1-1-2006, the salary certificate could not be produced before the Tribunal or the High Court. Applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma case as explained in Santosh Devi case and in the instant case, the compensation has to be reassessed as follows: S. No. Heads Calculation (i) Salary Rs. 9520 per month (ii) 50% of (i) above to be added as future prospects (Rs. 9520 + Rs. 4760) = Rs. 14,280 per month (iii) ¼th of (ii) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased (Rs. 14,280 - Rs. 3570) = Rs. 10,710 per month (iv) Compensation after multiplier of 16 is applied (Rs. 10,710 × 12 × 16) = Rs. 20,56,320 (v) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000 (vi) Loss of care and guidance for minor children Rs. 1,00,000 (vii) Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000 Total Compensation Awarded Rs. 22,81,320 The amount will carry interest @ 7.5% as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the filing of the petition viz. 26-11-2007 till realisation.” 18. On the conspectus of judicial precedent on the issue it is now no longer res integra that the benefit of revision and enhancement of salary of the victim of accident can be taken into consideration, if the revision of pay scale takes place though subsequent to the death but with retrospective effect covering the date of death of such victim. The subsequent prospective revision of pay scales resulting in enhancement of salary of the deceased, which takes place after the death of the deceased employee, however, cannot be considered and as rightly held in Sarla Verma’s case, the said increase in salary would subsume in head loss of future prospects. 19. In view of the clear mandate of law, facts of each case are required to be seen. 20. 19. In view of the clear mandate of law, facts of each case are required to be seen. 20. In the instant case, the accident occurred on 04.05.2009 and the pay revision pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission was implemented by the Government vide SRO 93 of 2009 which came to be issued on 15.04.2009 i.e. prior to the date of death of the deceased and the benefit of pay revision was given retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 21. That being so, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the revision of salary of the deceased as would have been payable to him on 04.05.2009 in view of the retrospective revision. The claimant had specifically pleaded in his claim petition the factum of revision of pay scale and had sufficiently indicated the corresponding revised pay. This has not been rebutted by the appellant-Insurance Company by leading any contrary evidence. 22. That being so, the Tribunal was not correct in declining the claim of the claimant on account of revised salary, more so when the same Tribunal in another case titled Leela Devi and Others vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another has held to the contrary and given the benefit of revised salary to the claimants by taking into consideration the enhanced salary for computing loss of dependency. From the perusal of the Award of the Tribunal, it is not discernible as to how the learned Tribunal drew distinction between the case in hand and the case of Leela Devi when both the cases were apparently identical and similarly placed. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on Sarla Verma’s case to deny the claim of revision of pay is misconceived. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that in Sarla Verma’s case, the Supreme Court had only held that the benefit of pay revision that takes place after the death and during pendency of the claim petition or appeal cannot be taken note of and the compensation head “future prospects” would take care of the aforesaid aspect. The Supreme Court, however, did not hold that the pay revision which though takes place after the death but with retrospective effect covering the date of death of the deceased employee should also be ignored while computing the loss of income/dependency. 23. In view of the above, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. The Supreme Court, however, did not hold that the pay revision which though takes place after the death but with retrospective effect covering the date of death of the deceased employee should also be ignored while computing the loss of income/dependency. 23. In view of the above, taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 14,957/- which is rounded off to Rs. 14,960/- and adding 50% on account of loss of future prospects, the monthly income comes to Rs. 22,440/-. Deducting 50% on account of personal living expenses, the net income of the deceased would come to Rs. 11,220/-. Applying the multiplier of 16 as prescribed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 21,54,240/- (11220 x 12 x 16). 24. Having held thus and for the reasons stated above, the award passed by the Tribunal needs to be modified in the following manner. 25. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified in the following manner:- Loss of dependency Rs. 21,54,240/- Loss of consortium to husband Rs. 40,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 22,24,240/- 26. The claimant is held entitled to the aforesaid amount of compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimant shall stand allowed to the extent aforesaid. MA No. 314/2012 and MA No. 275/2012 27. In the instant case the claimants before the Tribunal were widow and minor children of the deceased-Shakeel Nawaz who died in the accident in question. It was claimed that at the time of accident he was 37 years old. It is claimed that he was employed as teacher in the Education Department and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 14,469/-. The claimants, thus, lodged a claim for compensation of Rs. 65,12,832/- under different heads. Since the claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company, as such, a specific issue in this regard was framed and the burden of proof was placed on the claimants. In order to prove the aforesaid issue claimants led their evidence. 28. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 14469/- as has been proved by the Salary certificate issued by the competent authority. In order to prove the aforesaid issue claimants led their evidence. 28. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 14469/- as has been proved by the Salary certificate issued by the competent authority. Taking the age of the deceased as 37 years, as in Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the State Board of School Education the date of birth has been indicated as 18.10.1971, applying the guidelines as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal added 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects and accordingly, applying the multiplier of 13, computed the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 22,57,112/- which was rounded off to Rs. 22,58,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the claimants:- Loss of dependency Rs. 22,58,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 22,83,000/- 29. Award of the Tribunal has been assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the same is exorbitant as the Tribunal has wrongly enhanced the income of deceased by 50%. 30. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Award of the Tribunal is required to be enhanced on the ground the Tribunal has not taken into consideration revision of pay of the deceased on account of implementation of 6th Pay Commission report by the State Government. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 15, as has been prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 31. I have carefully gone through the award of the Tribunal and the evidence on record and find that the Tribunal has erred in declining benefit of pay revision while working out loss of dependency and also in applying the multiplier of 13 instead of 15, as has been prescribed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). The death in this case took place on 04.05.2009 and the pay revision was effected vide SRO 93 of 2009 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006. As discussed above, the claimants are entitled to the benefit of revision for the purposes of computing the loss of income/dependency. Since the dependent family members were three, hence the Tribunal was correct in deducting 1/3rd on account of personal living expenses. As discussed above, the claimants are entitled to the benefit of revision for the purposes of computing the loss of income/dependency. Since the dependent family members were three, hence the Tribunal was correct in deducting 1/3rd on account of personal living expenses. The Tribunal has rightly added 50% to the income of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. The amounts paid under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are on lower side and to bring them in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) are required to be enhanced. 32. The income of the deceased after revision of salary comes to Rs. 17,900/- i.e. Rs. 13500/- (10700 + 2800) + 22% DA (Rs. 2970/-) + CA Rs. 455/- + Medical Allowance Rs. 300/- + House Rent Allowance @ 5% Rs. 675/-. Therefore, adding 50% towards future prospects the monthly income would come to Rs. 26,850/-. Deducting 1/3rd on account of personal living expenses, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 17,900/-. Applying the multiplier of 15 as has been indicated in Sarla Verma’s case, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 32,22,000/-. The amounts granted on account of other heads are on the lower side and are required to be increased to bring them in tune with the settled legal position by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 33. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified in the following manner:- Loss of dependency Rs. 32,22,000/- Loss of consortium to wife Rs. 40,000/- Loss of estate/love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 32,92,000/- 34. The claimants are held entitled to the aforesaid amount of compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimant shall stand disposed of in the above terms. MA No. 316/2012 35. In the instant case the claimants before the Tribunal were widow, three children and mother of the deceased Suram Chand who died in the accident in question. It was claimed that at the time of accident he was 53 years old. It is claimed that the deceased was employed as Lecturer in the Education Department and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 20,697/-. It was claimed that at the time of accident he was 53 years old. It is claimed that the deceased was employed as Lecturer in the Education Department and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 20,697/-. The claimants, thus, lodged a claim for compensation of Rs. 31,00,000/- under different heads. Since the claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company, as such, a specific issue in this regard was framed and the burden of proof was on the claimants. In order to prove the aforesaid issue claimants led their evidence. 36. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal after deducting income tax at the rates applicable, assessed the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 23,800/- after revision of salary. Taking the age of the deceased as 53 years, as indicated in the date of birth certificate placed on record and applying the multiplier of 13, computed the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 22,57,112/- which was rounded off to Rs. 22,58,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the claimants:- Loss of dependency Rs. 22,58,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 22,83,000/- 37. I have carefully gone through the award and the evidence available on record and find no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is upheld. MA No. 317/2012 and Cross Appeal No. 2/2013 38. In the instant case the claimants before the Tribunal were widow and minor daughter and parents of the deceased-Subash Chander, who died in the accident in question. It was claimed that at the time of accident he was 36 years old. It is claimed that he was employed as Lecturer in the Education Department and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 21,392/- . The claimants, thus, lodged a claim for compensation of Rs. 67,28,424/- under different heads. Since the claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company, as such, a specific issue in this regard was framed and the burden of proof was placed on the claimants. In order to prove the aforesaid issue claimants led their evidence. 39. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. In order to prove the aforesaid issue claimants led their evidence. 39. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 21,392/- as has been proved by the Salary certificate issued by the competent authority and after deducting of income tax, the income of the deceased was assessed as Rs. 21,000/-. Taking the age of the deceased as 36 years, as indicated in Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the State Board of School Education, the Tribunal added 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Since the deceased left behind widow, minor child and old parents, 1/4th deduction was made on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, applying the multiplier of 15, computed the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 36,86,000/-,which was rounded off to Rs. 22,58,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the claimants:- Loss of dependency Rs. 36,86,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 37,11,000/- 40. Award of the Tribunal has been assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the same is exorbitant. 41. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Award of the Tribunal is required to be enhanced on the ground the Tribunal has not taken into consideration revision of pay of the deceased on account of implementation of 6th Pay Commission report by the State Government. It is submitted that the claimants have produced the revised salary certificate of the deceased and same stands proved. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13 instead of 15, as has been prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 42. I have carefully gone through the award of the Tribunal and the evidence on record and found that the Tribunal has erred in declining benefit of pay revision while working out loss of dependency and also in applying the multiplier of 13 instead of 15, as has been prescribed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Since the dependent family members were three, hence the Tribunal was correct in deducting 1/4th on account of personal living expenses. The Tribunal has rightly added 50% to the income of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. Since the dependent family members were three, hence the Tribunal was correct in deducting 1/4th on account of personal living expenses. The Tribunal has rightly added 50% to the income of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. The amounts paid under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are on lower side and to bring them in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) are required to be enhanced. 43. The income of the deceased after revision of salary as has been indicated in the revised salary certificate placed on record comes to Rs. 27,232/-. The income of the deceased would certainly be taxable as such Rs. 532/- should be deducted on account of income tax. Therefore, the net income of the deceased would come to Rs. 26700/-. Adding 50% towards future prospects the monthly income would come to Rs. 40,050/-. Deducting 1/4th on account of personal living expenses, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 30,038/- which is rounded off to Rs. 30,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 15 as has been indicated in Sarla Verma’s case, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 54,00,000/- (30,000 x 12 x 15). The amounts granted on account of other heads are on the lower side and are required to be increased to bring them in tune with the settled legal position by the Supreme court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 44. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified in the following manner:- Loss of dependency Rs. 54,00,000/- Loss of consortium to wife Rs. 40,000/- Loss of estate/love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 54,70,000/- 45. The claimants are held entitled to the aforesaid amount of compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimants shall stand disposed of in the above terms. CIMA No. 318/2012 and CIMA No. 276/2012 46. In the instant case the claimants before the Tribunal were widow and minor children of the deceased-Naseer Ahmed who died in the accident in question. It was claimed that at the time of accident he was 35 years old. CIMA No. 318/2012 and CIMA No. 276/2012 46. In the instant case the claimants before the Tribunal were widow and minor children of the deceased-Naseer Ahmed who died in the accident in question. It was claimed that at the time of accident he was 35 years old. It is claimed that he was employed as teacher in the Education Department and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 14,423/-. The claimants, thus, lodged a claim for compensation of Rs. 57,84,000/- under different heads. Since the claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company, therefore, a specific issue in this regard was framed and the burden of proof was on the claimants. In order to prove the aforesaid issue claimants led their evidence. 47. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 14469/- as has been proved by the Salary certificate issued by the competent authority. Taking the age of the deceased as 35 years, as in Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the State Board of School Education the date of birth has been indicated as 10.01.1974, applying the guidelines as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal added 50% to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, and applying the multiplier of 14, computed the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 19,19,008/- which was rounded off to Rs. 19,20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation to the claimants:- Loss of dependency Rs. 19,20,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium to widow Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 19,45,000/- 48. Award of the Tribunal has been assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the same is exorbitant as the Tribunal has wrongly enhanced the income of deceased by 50%. It is also submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 49. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Award of the Tribunal is required to be enhanced on the ground the Tribunal has not taken into consideration revision of pay of the deceased on account of implementation of 6th Pay Commission report by the State Government. 49. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Award of the Tribunal is required to be enhanced on the ground the Tribunal has not taken into consideration revision of pay of the deceased on account of implementation of 6th Pay Commission report by the State Government. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14 instead of 16, as has been prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 50. I have carefully gone through the award of the Tribunal and the evidence on record and found that the Tribunal has erred in declining benefit of pay revision while working out loss of dependency and also in applying the multiplier of 14 instead of 16, as has been prescribed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Since the dependent family members were three, hence the Tribunal was correct in deducting 1/3rd on account of personal living expenses. The Tribunal has rightly added 50% to the income of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. The amounts paid under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses are on lower side and to bring them in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) are required to be enhanced. 51. The income of the deceased after revision of salary comes to Rs. 14,875/- i.e. Rs. 11,170/- (8370 + 2800) + 22% DA (Rs. 2457/-) + CA Rs. 390/- + Medical Allowance Rs. 300/- + House Rent Allowance @ 5% Rs. 558/-. Therefore, adding 50% towards future prospects the monthly income would come to Rs. 22,312/-. Deducting 1/3rd on account of personal living expenses, the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 14,875/-. Applying the multiplier of 16 as has been indicated in Sarla Verma’s case, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 28,56,000/-. The amounts granted on account of other heads are on the lower side and are required to be increased to bring them in tune with the settled legal position by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 52. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified in the following manner:- Loss of dependency Rs. 28,56,000/- Loss of consortium to wife Rs. 40,000/- Loss of estate/love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 52. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, modified in the following manner:- Loss of dependency Rs. 28,56,000/- Loss of consortium to wife Rs. 40,000/- Loss of estate/love and affection Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 29,26,000/- 53. The claimants are held entitled to the aforesaid amount of compensation along with interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimant shall stand disposed of in the above terms. 54. The Appellant-Insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount in terms of the modified awards.