JUDGMENT : 1. M.F.A. No. 8807/2015 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas M.F.A. No. 25/2015 has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved, by the judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). Since, both the appeals preferred under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) arise out of the same accident as well as same judgment passed by the Tribunal, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 26.06.2011, the deceased Naveen R was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-04-MR-8901. When he reached near Mandal Tyre Shop, JK Road, Bhopal, a truck bearing Registration No. MP-04-HB-2376 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle' for short), which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle in which the deceased was traveling. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident and was employed as a Senior Technical Assisstant at ISRO and was earning a sum of Rs.33,791/-per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,00,000/-along with interest. 4. The insurance company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that the wife of the deceased had also filed a similar claim petition, in respect of the same accident for the death of the deceased at Bhopal. It was further pleaded that the claim petition was not maintainable. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. It was further pleaded that the claim petition was not maintainable. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The respondents examined Shewta N (RW1), Narayana KA (RW2), N Ananjaneya Sarma (RW3), C Surendra (RW4) and got exhibited documents namely, Ex.R1 to Ex.R22. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.55,37,674/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased by placing reliance on Ex.R3 which did not disclose the accurate monthly salary of the deceased as the same contained a special allowance to the extent of Rs.5,000/-which was not paid to the deceased in other months as evident from Ex.R15. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not deducting a sum to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-and Rs.12,34,091 which formed a part of the death benefits given to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in the accident. It is also submitted that Rs.5,229/-per month should be deducted from the income of deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' on account of the pensionary benefits being drawn by the wife of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that Tribunal erred in not considering Ex.R5 Promotion Letter, while assessing the income of the deceased, which discloses that the deceased was promoted on 13.06.2011 with effect from 01.07.2011 and that the deceased would have drawn a higher salary as per the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects to the extent of 200%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects to the extent of 200%. It is also submitted that the pensionary benefits being drawn by the wife of the deceased are not liable to be deducted from the compensation. In support of the aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in VIMAL KANWAR AND ORS VS. KISHORE DAN AND ORS (2013) 7 SCC 476 , NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS GOPALI AND ORS (2012) 12 SCC 198 and PAPPU DEO YADAV VS NARESH KUMAR AIR 2020 SC 4424 . 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is well settled in law that any contributions made by the deceased during his lifetime which forms a part of the salary is to be included in the monthly income while computing the loss of dependency and that the only permissible deductions from the salary of the deceased are those which are statutory in nature and the benefit of which would not pass on to the family of the deceased such as deductions on account of income tax, professional tax etc. [SEE: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. INDIRA SRIVASTAVA (2008) 2 SCC 763 ]. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.32,651/-per month after deducting a sum of Rs.913/-per month towards income tax, Rs.18/-towards educational cess, Rs.9/-towards higher education cess and Rs.208/-per month also has to be deducted from the aforesaid income on account of professional tax. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.R3 Pay Slip, the deceased was paid Rs.5,000/-as Space Tech allowance which is a one-time allowance paid annually to the employees of ISRO in recognition of their contribution to the success of missions undertaken by ISRO. The aforesaid amount which is a one time annual allowance has to be included in the annual salary of the deceased after deducting the same from the monthly salary of the deceased as contained in Ex.R3 Pay Slip. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be assessed at Rs.27,643/-per month. However, in view of the annual space tech allowance paid to the deceased, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.3,36,716/- (Rs.27,643x12 + Rs.5,000/-). 8. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be assessed at Rs.27,643/-per month. However, in view of the annual space tech allowance paid to the deceased, the annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.3,36,716/- (Rs.27,643x12 + Rs.5,000/-). 8. In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant that the deceased was promoted on 13.06.2011 with effect from 01.07.2011 and that the deceased would have drawn a higher salary as per the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the well settled law that for the purpose of computation of compensation under the Act, 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 deceased is irrelevant as the same is covered in the form of additions made to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. 9. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 has held that while determining the income of the deceased, an addition of 50% of the actual salary of the income of the deceased has to be made towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job. The aforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court binds us and therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants to contend that an addition to the extent of 200% to the salary of the deceased is to be made on account of future prospects, are of no avail. Therefore, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be added on account of future prospects to the income of the deceased as the deceased was in permanent employee of ISRO. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs.5,05,074/-. Since, the number of dependents is 3, therefore, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.3,36,716/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 29 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘17 has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.3,36,716x17) i.e., Rs.57,24,172/-on account of loss of dependency. 10. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 29 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘17 has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.3,36,716x17) i.e., Rs.57,24,172/-on account of loss of dependency. 10. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130 , which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ AIR 2020 SC 3076 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/-on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.58,74,172/-. Needless to state that the enhanced amount of compensation i.e, Rs.3,36,498/-shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. 11. As far as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Tribunal erred in not deducting a sum to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-and Rs.12,34,091 which formed a part of the death benefits given to the claimants on account of death of the deceased in the accident and that Rs.5,229/-per month should be deducted from the income of deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' on account of the pensionary benefits being drawn by the wife of the deceased is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in SEBESTIANI LAKRA AND ORS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AIR 2018 SC 5034 and HELEN REBELLO VS MAHARASHTRA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (1999) 1 SCC 90 in which, inter alia, it has been held that the death benefits received by the claimants from the employer on account of group insurance, provident fund or other pensionary benefits cannot be deducted from the compensation payable to the claimants as the same accrues to the claimants on account of the contractual transaction which the deceased would have entered into.