JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. - By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles, Act 1988 (for short, the said Act) the claimants seek enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 2. According to the claimants, the husband of appellant No.1 was employed as a Sectional Engineer with the State Government and he was aged 36 years. On 27.1.1998 when he was travelling in a Tata Sumo, a Tipper coming from the opposite side gave a dash to the said Tata Sumo which resulted in injuries to the husband of appellant No.1. On the death of her husband, the appellant No.1 along with her minor children filed claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act. In the written statement the insurer of the said Tipper denied the claim as made. It was pleaded that the Tata Sumo itself was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The insurer of the Tata Sumo in its written statement raised a plea that said vehicle was being driven against the policy conditions and hence it was not liable to satisfy the claim for compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 8,55,000/as compensation. Not being satisfied with the said quantum, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Shri R. S. Charpe, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal erred in considering the monthly salary of the deceased on a lower side. Referring to the salary certificate at Exhibit 64, it was submitted that only the amount of professional tax was liable to be deducted. However, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal deducted various amounts which were otherwise not permissible to be deducted. Similarly, no amount was granted towards future prospects. The amounts granted on conventional heads were also on a lower side. It was thus submitted that compensation as granted deserves to be suitably enhanced. 4. Shri R. D. Wakode, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 - owner of the Tipper submitted that the said vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and therefore liability if any would be covered by respondent No.2. He however submitted that the compensation as awarded to the claimants was reasonable not requiring any further enhancement. 4. Shri R. D. Wakode, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 - owner of the Tipper submitted that the said vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and therefore liability if any would be covered by respondent No.2. He however submitted that the compensation as awarded to the claimants was reasonable not requiring any further enhancement. According to him, after considering the legal position that was prevailing when the claim petition was decided fair compensation has been awarded to the claimants. 5. The following point arises for adjudication: Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation? 6. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the records of the case. 7. It is seen that the deceased was working as Sectional Engineer as per the document at Exhibit 82. The salary shown therein is Rs. 7599/. There is yet another certificate at Exhibit 64 which states that in January, 1998 his total salary was Rs. 9275/. The witness at Exhibit 63 has deposed that the said certificate was issued by the Dy. Executive Engineer and he identified the signature thereon. It thus becomes clear that the deceased was working as a Sectional Engineer when the accident occurred in January, 1998. The date of birth of the deceased is indicated in the deposition of CW2 at Exhibit 63. The same is shown as 2-7-1957. This date was given after verifying the service book of the deceased and thus when the accident occurred, he was aged about 41 years. From the gross salary of Rs. 9275/, an amount of Rs. 200/towards professional tax alone is liable to be deducted. Considering the fixed salary being received and in view of the age of the deceased, 40% amount towards future prospects would be admissible. This would make the said figure of net salary as Rs. 12,705/per month. One third deduction for personal expenses would make the said figure Rs. 8479/. Thus, the annual salary would be Rs. 1,01,640/. Considering the age of the deceased the multiplier applicable would be 14. This would give the figure of Rs. 14,22,960/. An amount of Rs. 40,000/each for loss of consortium for the two claimants would Rs. 80,000/while the amount towards loss of love and affection at Rs. 50,000/would be Rs. 1,00,000/. Funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/and further amount of Rs. 15,000/towards loss of estate would make the said figure Rs. 16,32,960/. This would give the figure of Rs. 14,22,960/. An amount of Rs. 40,000/each for loss of consortium for the two claimants would Rs. 80,000/while the amount towards loss of love and affection at Rs. 50,000/would be Rs. 1,00,000/. Funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/and further amount of Rs. 15,000/towards loss of estate would make the said figure Rs. 16,32,960/. This amount is found to be just and reasonable compensation to which the appellants are entitled. 8. It is seen that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal has disallowed the interest for the period from filing of the claim petition till 8-6-2008. The ground given is that the claimants had delayed filing of their claim affidavit. Perusal of the Roznama indicates that the claimants alone could not be blamed for the delay in progress of the proceedings. After the issues were framed, the claim petition was amended and parties were added to the proceedings. After granting those parties further time, the proceedings then progressed. Initially, the claim affidavit was filed on 13-6-2005 and thereafter another affidavit was filed after the parties were added. It is thus found that interest for the aforesaid period has been wrongly disallowed by the Claims Tribunal. The point as framed is answered by holding the appellants are entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation. 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (1) The judgment dated 4-8-2010 in M.A.C.P. No.668/1999 is partly modified. It is held that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 16,32,960/including the amount payable towards ''no-fault'' liability. The entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% from 16-4-1999 till realization. After deducting the amount of compensation already received by the appellants, the balance compensation shall be paid to them jointly and severally by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. (2) The First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.