JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This appeal was filed by the petitioners in MVOP.No.373 of 2005 aggrieved by the decree and order, dated 27.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short "the tribunal") in awarding compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/-, for the death of one Dasari Vengur Prakash (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.11.2004 and sought for enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The case of the petitioners in claim petition is that on 08.11.2004 at about 1-40 p.m., when the deceased was returning from bank on his scooter, the 1st respondent, who is the driver-cumowner of the Maruti Car Bearing No.A.P.31 D 9700 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle", drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and received injuries and died. The petitioner is the wife and 3 rd respondent is the mother and 4th petitioner is the sister of the deceased. The deceased was working as Junior Officer in Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and drawing a salary of Rs.28,375-41 ps. The petitioners are the dependants on the deceased and for the death of the deceased, they filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The 1st respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle and as such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. A case was registered in Crime No.71 of 2004 by the Steel Plant Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the rash and negligence attributed to him and nature of the accident. It is contended that on 08.11.2004 at about 1-40 p.m. while he proceeding on his car and when he reached near Project Office, Steel Plant, the 1st respondent gave indicator light signal to take left turn and at that time he heard a sound from his back and then 1st respondent stopped the car and when he observed a scooterist, i.e., the deceased fell down on road after hitting the car from the back side. The 1st respondent has not overtaking the scooterist. The 1st respondent has not overtaking the scooterist. The accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooterist i.e., the deceased himself only. Immediately, the 1st respondent gave a report to the Steel Plant Police Station with regard to this incident. He claimed that there is no liability to him to pay the compensation. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that the incident was due to the fault of the deceased and disputed the rashness and negligence attributed to the 1st respondent. It was also disputed with respect to the quantum of compensation claimed and the nature of the dependency of the petitioners on the deceased, etc. and sought dismissal of the claim petition. 6. During trial, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and the 4th respondent was examined as R.W.2 and on behalf of the respondents Exs.B.1 and B.2 marked and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked through PW.2. 7. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal passed decree and order holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., Maruti Car bearing No.A.P.31 D 9700 driven by the 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent and as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.6,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Heard Sri K. Purushotham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri S.A.V. Ratnam, appearing on behalf of the 2 nd respondent-insurance company. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- only as against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/- without considering the Ex.X.2 while determining income of the deceased and also erred in applying wrong multiplier and future prospectus were not considered and the tribunal also went wrong in not granting compensation and other conventional heads. He further argued that the petitioners are entitled for the entire compensation claimed under the settled law. 10. He further argued that the petitioners are entitled for the entire compensation claimed under the settled law. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company argued that the order of the tribunal is basing on the evidence available on record and there is no need to revise the same and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Basing on the rival contentions of the learned counsel and evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no any dispute with regard to the aspect of rash and negligence driving of the 1st respondent and liability aspect. 12. The only issue to be considered in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement? 13. The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW.1. She deposed that the deceased was a Junior Officer and his date of birth is 30.01.1959 and the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.19,096-57 ps. and the net salary is Rs.13,213/-. Ex.X.2 is the salary certificate and Ex.X.3 is personal file of the deceased. The Manager, Personnel Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant was examined as PW.2. He deposed that the deceased was working as Junior Officer in Steel Plant on the date of the accident. As per records available in the Steel Plant the date of birth of the deceased is 30.01.1959. He further deposed that the deceased was aged 45 years on the date of his death and he was having another 15 years of service. Had the deceased been alive, he would have been promoted at four or five stages and he will become the manager as per the present promotion policy. He further deposed that Ex.X.1 is the letter of authorization issued by the Steel Plant and Ex.X.2 is the salary certificate of the deceased for the month of November, 2004 issued by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and Ex.X.3 is the attested copies of the personal file of the deceased. In the cross examination, PW.2 deposed that in the pay slip for the month of November 2004 an amount of Rs.3,000/- was deducted from the salary of the deceased towards festival advance and net salary was shown as Rs.13,213/-, otherwise, the actual salary of the deceased was Rs.16,213/-. In the cross examination, PW.2 deposed that in the pay slip for the month of November 2004 an amount of Rs.3,000/- was deducted from the salary of the deceased towards festival advance and net salary was shown as Rs.13,213/-, otherwise, the actual salary of the deceased was Rs.16,213/-. He further deposed that under the employee family benefit scheme the Steel Plaint is giving an amount of Rs.13,055/- to the wife of the deceased per month. The wife of the deceased will get this amount till the superannuation of the deceased i.e., 2019. He further deposed in the cross examination of 2 nd respondent that the wife of the deceased opted for employee family benefit scheme in the place of employment. 14. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.X.2 salary certificate which was proved by PW.2, it is clear that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.19,096-57 ps. per month and a sum of Rs.3,473-57 ps. is shown as production incentive, which is evidently is not a regular part of the salary, as such, it has to be deducted. A sum of Rs.1,538/- is deducted towards income tax and Rs.150/- is deducted towards professional tax. If these three amounts are deducted (Rs.3,473-57 ps.+Rs.1,538/-+Rs.150/-= Rs.5,161-57 ps.) out of the gross salary of Rs.19,096-57 ps. the net salary of the deceased is Rs.13,935/-. The tribunal has rightly considered the salary of the deceased per month. Later, the tribunal has committed grave error in deducting half of the salary towards personal expenditure of the deceased, if he had alive in view of the deceased and the 1st petitioner have no children. Though the 1st petitioner and deceased are not having children, as per the claim petition the tribunal ought to have considered that there are three dependants on the deceased. In the light of this fact, deducting half of the salary instead of regular deduction of 1/3rd is unreasonable and contrary to the settled law. The tribunal also committed another error in restricting the compensation payable to the petitioners to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, taking into consideration that the 1st petitioner is getting a sum of Rs.13,057/- per month under the "employee family benefit scheme" of the Steel Plant. The tribunal also committed another error in restricting the compensation payable to the petitioners to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, taking into consideration that the 1st petitioner is getting a sum of Rs.13,057/- per month under the "employee family benefit scheme" of the Steel Plant. The tribunal lost sight in noticing that the 1st petitioner opted for the payment under "employee family benefit scheme" in the place of employment and this payment will be made only till the superannuation of the deceased i.e., 2019. Therefore, the approach of the tribunal in restricting the compensation to Rs.6,00,000/- is not in accordance with law, unjust and unreasonable. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sebastiani Lakra and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2019) 1 ALD 55 (SC) in which similar issue came up for consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held at para Nos.12 and 14 as follows: 12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to 'just compensation' under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceased performed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into the hands of the dependents only after his death. 14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. 14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to his employer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, the said amount cannot be deducted. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar vs. Kishore Don, (2013) 4 ALD 156 (SC)= AIR 2013 SC 38 following Helen C. Rebello vs. Maharashtra SRTC, 1998 AIR SC 3191 held that the amounts received by the heirs by way of provident fund pension and insurance cannot be termed "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that the salary received on compassionate appointment cannot be deducted. 17. In the instant case, admittedly, the 1st petitioner opted for the payment under "employee family benefit scheme" in the place of employment and this payment will be made only till the superannuation of the deceased i.e., 2019. As such, in the light of the law laid down in Sebastiani Lakra's case (supra) it is clear that the tribunal committed wrong in restricting compensation on the ground that the 1st petitioner is getting payment under "employee family benefit scheme". 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sebastiani Lakra's case (supra) held at para No.5 as follows: Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") mandates that "just compensation" should be paid to the claimants. Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in the award of "just compensation" would not be in accordance with the Act. The word "just" is of a very wide amplitude. The Courts must interpret the word in the manner which meets the object of the Act which is to give adequate and just compensation to the dependants of the deceased. One must also remember that the compensation can be paid only once and not time and again. 19. The word "just" is of a very wide amplitude. The Courts must interpret the word in the manner which meets the object of the Act which is to give adequate and just compensation to the dependants of the deceased. One must also remember that the compensation can be paid only once and not time and again. 19. In Helen C. Rebello's case (supra) the meaning of the "just" discussed as follows: In Law Lexicon, 5th Edn., by T.P.Mukherjee "Just" is described: "The term "just" is derived from the Latin word Justus. It has various meanings and its meaning is often governed by the context. "Just" may apply in nearly all of its senses, either to ethics or law, denoting something which is morally right and fair and sometimes that which is right and fair according to positive law. If connotes reasonableness and something conforming to rectitude and justice something equitable, fair (vide page 1100 of volume 50, Corpus Juris Secundum). At page 438 of Words and Phrases, edited by West publishing Co., vol.23 the true meaning of the word "just" is in these terms: "The word "Just" is derived from the Latin justus, which is from the Latin jus, which means a right and more technically a legal righta-law. 'Thus JUS dicere' was to pronounce the judgment; to give the legal decision. The word 'Just' is denned by the Century standard Dictionary as right in law or ethics and in Standard Dictionary as conforming to the requirements of right or of positive law, in Anderson's Law Dictionary as probable, reasonable, Kinney's Law Dictionary defines "Just" as fair, adequate, reasonable, probable; and justa cause as a just cause, a lawful ground. Vide Bregman v. Kress, 81 N.Y.S.1072, 1073, 83 App.Div. I." 20. In view of the above, the tribunal failed to award a, just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation for which the petitioners are entitled. Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of this Court to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners by following the settled law basing on the evidence available on record. 21. Admittedly, the deceased was a Junior Officer in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and getting salary of Rs.19,096-57 ps. per month and after deductions, he is getting net salary of Rs.13,935/- per month. The deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of the accident. 21. Admittedly, the deceased was a Junior Officer in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and getting salary of Rs.19,096-57 ps. per month and after deductions, he is getting net salary of Rs.13,935/- per month. The deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of the accident. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700 (SC) multiplier "14" has to be applied for the age group of 41 to 45 years. As such, the appropriate multiplier to be applied in the present case is "14". The standards fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) on the aspect of deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased are followed in the present case and the deduction should be 1/3rd. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased from the monthly net salary of Rs.13,935/- of the deceased, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.9,290/- per month and the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,11,480/-. If it multiplied by the relevant multiplier of "14", the loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,60,720/-. 22. Next, the issue of addition of future prospectus to be determined. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) held that an addition of 25% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospectus has to be taken where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years. By following this principle, after adding 25% of the salary of the deceased to determine the multiplicand the loss of dependency to the petitioners for untimely death of the deceased comes to Rs.19,50,900/-. The petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). However, the amounts granted under conventional heads should be enhanced at the rate of 10% namely three years as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). As such, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. 23. However, the amounts granted under conventional heads should be enhanced at the rate of 10% namely three years as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). As such, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses. 23. In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation under various heads can be detailed as below: (a) loss of dependency Rs.13,395/-+Rs.3,484/-x12x14 : Rs.19,50,900-00 (b) loss to estate : Rs. 16,500-00 (c) loss of consortium : Rs. 44,000-00 (d) funeral expenses : Rs. 16,500-00 Total : Rs.20,27,900-00 24. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.20,27,900/- which is a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation. 25. In the result, the MACMA No.1262 of 2009 is allowed and ordered as follows: (a) the compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,27,900/- (Rupees twenty lakh twenty seven thousand and nine hundred only); (b) the enhanced amount of Rs.14,27,900/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization; (c) the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners; (d) the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of receipt of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them; (e) the apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall be in the same ratio as is fixed by the tribunal while apportioning compensation granted by it; (f) the 4th respondent who is the only LR of the 3rd respondent (died) vide Court order, dated 12.09.2013 in C.M.P.No.4442 of 2013 is entitled for the share of the 3rd respondent; (g) the other directions of the tribunal shall remain unaltered; (h) there shall, however, be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.