JUDGMENT : S.Sounthar, J. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come by way of this appeal. 2. The husband of the first claimant and father of the claimants 2 to 4 died in a road accident that had occurred on 05.12.2008. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.TN-04B-4060 belonging to the first respondent Corporation. The lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the tree branches, as a result, the trash boxes kept in lorry had fallen over the victim, due to the impact, the victim fell down from the lorry and sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted in a Government Hospital and died on 14.12.2008. Therefore, the claimants have filed the Motor Accident Claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The claim petition was opposed by the first respondent/Corporation on the ground that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. The negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry was specifically denied. It was further claimed by the first respondent that the lorry was insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company and hence the second respondent was liable to pay the compensation. 4. The second respondent filed counter disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The second respondent also claimed that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. It was further pleaded by the second respondent that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle and hence there was no statutory requirement for the second respondent to cover the passenger travelling in the goods vehicle. 5. It is further contended by the second respondent that as per the terms of Insurance policy, any liability that may be determined by the Court over and above limited liability as provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, will have to borne by the first respondent. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1 st appellant/1 st claimant was examined as PW.1. One eye witness was examined as PW.2 and Office Assistant of the first respondent Corporation was examined as PW.3 on behalf of the claimants. Seventeen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the first respondent, no one was examined as witness. 6. Before the Tribunal, the 1 st appellant/1 st claimant was examined as PW.1. One eye witness was examined as PW.2 and Office Assistant of the first respondent Corporation was examined as PW.3 on behalf of the claimants. Seventeen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the first respondent, no one was examined as witness. The second respondent examined it's Deputy Manager as RW.1 and on behalf of the second respondent, three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. 7. Based on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry owned by the first respondent. It was also held by the Tribunal that the second respondent/Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation amount only to the extent of the coverage attracting Employee's Compensation Act and the rest had to be borne by the 1 st respondent employer. The amount of compensation payable to the claimants was quantified by the Tribunal at Rs.13,24,000/-. The second respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,68,680/- and the balance of Rs.7,55,320/- was directed to be paid by the first respondent. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come by way of this appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants as well as the respondents 1 and 2 have not questioned the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence and liability. The arguments are advanced only on the question of quantum. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in order to prove the salary of the deceased, the claimants marked Ex.P17-salary certificate and the total salary of the victim was mentioned as Rs.8,166/-, however, the Tribunal fixed monthly income of deceased only at Rs.6,000/- and the same requires enhancement. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that in Ex.P17- the basic the salary of the deceased was mentioned as Rs.6,100/-. The remaining amounts are various allowances paid to the deceased employee and the same cannot be treated as contribution towards the family. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. A perusal of Ex.P17-salary certificate would indicate that the deceased employee has been paid various allowances including Dearness allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance. The remaining amounts are various allowances paid to the deceased employee and the same cannot be treated as contribution towards the family. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. A perusal of Ex.P17-salary certificate would indicate that the deceased employee has been paid various allowances including Dearness allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance. The split up details of the salary are as follows: Allowance Type Amount Basic Pay Rs. 6,100/- Dearness Allowance Rs. 976/- House Rent Allowance Rs. 680/- City Comp. Allowance Rs. 250/- Unclean Allowance Rs. 10/- Medical Allowance Rs. 100/- Tea Allowance Rs. 50/- Total Rs.8,166/- 11. The amount mentioned in the salary certificate under the heads towards Unclean Allowance, Medical Allowance, Tea Allowance etc., are personal to the deceased employee. Therefore, while calculating the loss of dependency, those three allowances cannot be taken into consideration. The Tribunal observed that in the claim petition income of the deceased was mentioned only as Rs.6,000/-. In a proceeding before claims Tribunal too much importance need not be given to pleadings as in the case of civil cases. If there is no evidence on record regarding income, the Tribunal can take into consideration, the plea in claim petition as a factor to fix notional income. However, in the case on hand, a salary certificate issued by Corporation of Chennai / a local authority is marked. The same cannot be ignored. The sanctity of salary certificate issued by Government undertakings, local authority etc, cannot be doubted easily. Hence, a statement made by the dependants of victim in the pleadings regarding income need not be given so much importance, in the light of unimpeachable evidence available on record, especially when author of said certificate who is also 1 st respondent, herein has not disputed the genuineness of the same. Therefore, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.8,000/-, based on Ex.P17. 12. As per Exs.P3 and R4, copy of post mortem certificate and death certificate, the Tribunal fixed age as 38 years and the same is justified one. Admittedly, the deceased was employed in the first respondent's Corporation. Therefore, he was a permanent employee in a statutory body and hence, as per the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 50% future prospects has to be added. Admittedly, the deceased was employed in the first respondent's Corporation. Therefore, he was a permanent employee in a statutory body and hence, as per the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 50% future prospects has to be added. For the age of the deceased, applicable multiplier is 15, as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma and others vs. DTC and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- (Rs.8,000x1.5x12x15x3/4) towards loss of dependency. Since the dependants are 4, 1/3 rd of the amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses are confirmed. Hence, the claimants are entitled a sum of Rs.18,10,000/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are modified as follows:- Sl. No. Description Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of income/dependency Rs.11,34,000/- Rs.16,20,000/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 3. Loss of Consortium Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- 4. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.13,24,000/- Rs.18,10,000/- 13. The amount of Rs.13,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is enhanced to Rs.18,10,000/-. As per the Insurance coverage, the second respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.7,58,240/- (50% monthly wages x 189.56) . The remaining amount of Rs.10,51,760/- has to paid by the first respondent/corporation. 14. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the proportionate share of the enhanced compensation together with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount by making proper application before the Tribunal. 15. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.