JUDGMENT : 1. The issues involved in this appeal are income of deceased is considered on higher side and provident fund amount is not deducted from compensation amount. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased at Rs.22,000/- per month without any evidence on record which is on higher side. She further submitted that the claimants have received amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as a provident fund amount but the Tribunal has not deducted it from the compensation amount, hence requested to allow the appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that, at the time of accident, deceased was not wearing helmet, hence there was contributory negligence of the deceased in the said accident. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondents claimants that deceased was working as a cashier in Masai Hospital at Kolhapur and he was getting Rs.22,000/- per month as a salary, on that basis, Tribunal has considered his monthly income. Learned counsel further submitted that provident fund amount is different from the compensation amount, it cannot be deducted from the compensation amount. Learned counsel further submitted that the consortium amount is awarded to claimant No.1 only, it be awarded to claimant Nos. 2 and 3 also, hence requested to dismiss the appeal. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur (for short “the Tribunal”). To prove the income of deceased, the claimants have examined claimant No.1, wife of deceased. She has stated that deceased was working as a cashier in Masai Hospital as a permanent employee and he was getting gross salary of Rs.23,800/- per month. In support of evidence of PW-1, the claimants have examined Kedar More, Assist. Manager of RBL Bank. He has stated that the salary of the deceased used to be deposited in bank account. His salary of June-2020 was of Rs.22,000/- it was deposited in his bank account. He produced extract of bank account of deceased. It is at Exhibit-32. Nothing elicited in the cross examination of this witness. The claimants have examined PW-3 Ashok Salokhe, Accountant of Masai Hospital, Kolhapur. His salary of June-2020 was of Rs.22,000/- it was deposited in his bank account. He produced extract of bank account of deceased. It is at Exhibit-32. Nothing elicited in the cross examination of this witness. The claimants have examined PW-3 Ashok Salokhe, Accountant of Masai Hospital, Kolhapur. He has stated that deceased was working in their hospital since 15 to 20 years prior to date of accident and he was getting gross salary of Rs.23,800/- per month and an amount of Rs.1800/- was deducted towards provident fund from his salary. After deducting the said amount, he was getting Rs.22,000/- per month. The salary certificate is at Exhibit-37 and his account statement is at Exhibit-38. Nothing elicited in cross examination of this witness to disbelieve his evidence. Considering evidence on record, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of deceased at Rs.22,000/-per month, I do not find infirmity in it as the witnesses have stated that deceased was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. It is contention of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- should have been deducted from the compensation amount. In my view, provident fund amount cannot be deducted from the compensation amount as provident fund is different from compensation amount. The provident fund amount is the amount which was deposited by the deceased out of his salary account. The provident fund is savings and retirement fund, contributed by salaried employees and their employers. Hence, it has no correlation with the compensation received because of accidental death. It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that at the time of accident deceased was not wearing helmet. There was contributory negligence of the deceased. It has come on record that deceased was a pillion rider and accident occurred due to negligence of driver of offending vehicle. Moreover, no evidence was produced on record by the appellant to prove that the deceased was not wearing helmet. Hence, I do not see merit in it. The Tribunal has awarded consortium amount to claimant No.1 only. As per the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled to Rs.48,000/- as consortium amount. There are two claimants, they are entitled for Rs.98,000/-. 5. In view of the above, I pass following order: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), each claimant is entitled to Rs.48,000/- as consortium amount. There are two claimants, they are entitled for Rs.98,000/-. 5. In view of the above, I pass following order: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. ii. The claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.98,000/- @7.5% interest from 1st November, 2017 till realisation of the amount. iii. The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon within 8 weeks from the receipt of this order. iv. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon. v. The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule. vi. The appeal be registered for statistical purpose. 6. The appeal is disposed of. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.