JUDGMENT : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Appellants herein, inter-alia, seek enhancement of compensation awarded vide the judgement/award dated 30.07.2019 rendered by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 117/2015, vide which a compensation of Rs. 9,24,833/- has been awarded in the favour of Appellant-claimants. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 26.11.2014, at about 8:00 p.m., the deceased, Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, aged 54 years, was returning home after rectifying an electrical line fault in the course of his duties as an employee of the Electricity Department. He was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-43-SA- 3729, driven by one Suresh. The motorcycle was proceeding on its correct side of the road at a moderate speed and in a cautious manner. When they reached near Birbal ki Dhani on the Sawariz– Dudhu road, Respondent No. 1, Pancharam, came from opposite side driving a tractor bearing registration No. RJ-19-RC-3951 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and collided with the motorcycle with great force. As a result of the said impact, Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal sustained grievous injuries on his head, face, and right leg, and succumbed to them on the spot. The accident was witnessed by Suresh, the motorcycle rider. 3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as an Office Assistant in the office of the Assistant Engineer (Power), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Phalodi, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.32,997/-. A First Information Report bearing No. 447/2014 was promptly registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Phalodi. Upon due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the tractor driver, establishing the rash and negligent driving on his part. 4. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.71,50,000/-. Respondent No.1, the driver-cum-owner of the tractor, contested the claim, taking a plea that the tractor was being driven on the correct side of the road at a slow speed and without negligence. Respondent No.2, the insurer, also filed its written statement denying the material facts of the petition and asserting that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the tractor driver. Respondent No.2, the insurer, also filed its written statement denying the material facts of the petition and asserting that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the tractor driver. It was further alleged that the tractor in question was not involved in the accident and that the motorcycle, was being driven by Suresh in the middle of the road in contravention of traffic rules he was solely responsible for the mishap. 5. Learned Tribunal framed four issues, English translation of which is as below:- “1. Did the respondent no. 1 hit the motorcycle no. RJ-43-SA-3729 with a tractor no. RJ-19-RC-3951 at high speed and negligently at 8:00 pm on 26.11.2014 near Birbal ki Dhani on Dudhu road, due to which Banshiram alias Banshilal, who was sitting on the motorcycle, died? 2. Are the respondents not liable for compensation on the strength of the grounds mentioned in the reply of the respondents? 3. Are the petitioners entitled to receive the amount of compensation, if so, how much and from whom? 4. Relief?” 6. The claimant-appellants examined AWs Banu Devi and Suresh. Respondent-insurer examined RW Sunil Chaudhary only. Respondent No. 1 (tractor driver) did not lead any evidence. 7. On appreciation of the evidence adduced, Learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 partly in favour of the Appellants and partly against them. Issue No. 2 was decided against the respondents. Under issue No. 3, it was held that the deceased, who was travelling as a pillion rider, was contributorily negligent to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.9,24,833/- in favour of the claimants. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop learned counsel for the appellant argues that the principal grievance of the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in law and on facts in attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased, who was merely a pillion rider and had no control whatsoever over the operation or driving of the motorcycle. It is submitted that there was absolutely no fault on the part of the driver of the motor cycle and the accident occurred solely because of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No. 1. Eyewitness AW-2 Suresh was driving the motor cycle of which the deceased was the owner and then a pillion rider. It is submitted that there was absolutely no fault on the part of the driver of the motor cycle and the accident occurred solely because of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No. 1. Eyewitness AW-2 Suresh was driving the motor cycle of which the deceased was the owner and then a pillion rider. He (AW-2 Suresh) deposed that when they reached Birbalram's village, the motor cycle was being driven him on the correct side of the road at a moderate speed. The offending tractor driven by respondent No. 1 at high speed and recklessly came from opposite side on the wrong side of the road. It struck the front and rear of the motor cycle. Bansi Lal who was seated on it’s pillion sustained injuries, fell down and succumbed to them on the spot. His testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. The driver of the offending tractor has not been examined by the respondents, to refute this story. RW Sunil Chaudhary had no personal knowledge of the incident. No reliance can be placed on his statement that the driver of motor cycle and/or the deceased pillion rider had caused the accident by their negligence or fault and/or it had resulted from their contributory negligence. Even otherwise, the deceased, seated and riding on the a pillion of the motor cycle had no role in or control over it’s driving and could not in any manner have contributed to the accident. Thus, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal against the deceased and the driver of the motor cycle is wholly perverse, arbitrary, and unsustainable. The Tribunal, instead of properly appreciating the evidence on record, has misapplied the concept of contributory negligence to a situation where only the tractor driver’s rash and negligent conduct was the proximate and direct cause of the accident. 9. It is further contended that at worst even assuming otherwise that the case at hand was one of composite negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles involved in the accident, the deceased, then being a mere pillion rider of the motor cycle, could not be ascribed any share of negligence. The deduction of 50% of the awarded compensation on such untenable reasoning, therefore, amounts to a miscarriage of justice and is liable to be set aside. 10. The deduction of 50% of the awarded compensation on such untenable reasoning, therefore, amounts to a miscarriage of justice and is liable to be set aside. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the compensation awarded for loss of earnings is grossly on the lower side. The learned Tribunal, in paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment, has observed, and correctly so, that no deduction could be made on account pensionary benefits and compassionate appointment received by the dependents of the deceased. However, in paragraph 28, learned Tribunal contradicted itself by deducting 50% from the pension while computing the total compensation for loss of earnings. This approach is legally flawed and inconsistent with the settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such post-death benefits, being independent service entitlements, cannot be set off against compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore, it is contradictory to the learned Tribunal’s own definite observations that no deduction could be made on account pensionary benefits and compassionate appointment received by the dependents of the deceased. 11. It was also contended that the deduction of 1/3 rd of the income for personal expenses of the deceased was excessive and that the learned Tribunal awarded less than the admissible compensation for loss of consortium and that the interest @6% was considerably less than the bank and market rates at the relevant time. 12. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company contested the above submissions and argued that the learned Tribunal had awarded just and fair compensation and there was no justification for it’s enhancement. 13. Heard the rival contentions and perused the case file. 14. On consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties and the rival submissions, it becomes evident that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error both in law and in fact in holding that there was 50% contributory negligence of the driver of the motor cycle finding in causing the accident. The finding is wholly unsupported by any evidence and is contrary to the actual evidence/record of the case, cannot be sustained and is and, therefore, is liable to be reversed. Accordingly, the finding of 50% contributory negligence attributed to the driver of the motor cycle, as recorded by the learned Tribunal is reversed. 15. The finding is wholly unsupported by any evidence and is contrary to the actual evidence/record of the case, cannot be sustained and is and, therefore, is liable to be reversed. Accordingly, the finding of 50% contributory negligence attributed to the driver of the motor cycle, as recorded by the learned Tribunal is reversed. 15. Relying upon the appellant’s documentary evidence comprising of the salary slip of the deceased, the learned Tribunal accepted his actual monthly income at Rs.32,997/-,added it’s 15% for future prospects. For computing compensation it took his notional income at Rs.37,947/- i.e. Rs.4,55,364/- per annum. These figures and calculations have not been questioned by either side. The learned Tribunal made a deduction of annual, income tax of Rs.10,268/- payable thereon. That would leave a net post tax annual income of Rs.4,45,096/-. By arithmetical error, however, the learned Tribunal adopted the net post tax annual income of the deceased as Rs.4,43,479/- instead of the correct figure Rs.4,45,096/-. 16. The deceased was 54 years of age when his life was suddenly cut short in the accident. There is no evidence on record to show to the contrary that he was 56 years as noted by Tribunal. Testimony of witness qua age of deceased remained unimpeached. The claimants are his aged parents (father 76 years & mother 74 years), the widow, son 28 years, an unmarried daughter 15 years and four married daughters. There are averments in the claim petition about their dependency on the deceased. Affidavit of claimant Danu Ram (father of the deceased) in support of the same is on record. No material to the contrary has been produced by the respondents and/or brought to my notice by their learned counsel. It transpires that following the death of Banshi Lal in harness, his employer gave an appointment to his son (one of the claimants in the case) on compassionate grounds. Obviously, he was unemployed and dependent on his father, when the latter died. Even though the four married daughters were not dependent on the deceased, yet they were his heirs/legal representatives and his usual social and moral obligations towards them continued. Considering all these facts and circumstances and the size of the family, it would be just and fair to make a deduction of 1/4 th of the income for the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3 rd deduction made by the learned Tribunal. Considering all these facts and circumstances and the size of the family, it would be just and fair to make a deduction of 1/4 th of the income for the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3 rd deduction made by the learned Tribunal. The annual contribution towards the family kitty and corresponding compensation for loss of dependency income for the claimants would be thus Rs.3,33,822/-. 17. In terms of the position settled by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and later by it’s Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 280 a multiplier of 11 was applicable in the case. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal erred in applying the lower multiplier of 9. By application of correct multiplier of 11, the total compensation payable to the claimants on account of loss of dependency income comes to Rs. 36,72,042/-. 18. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 , by relying upon the Constitution Bench Judgment in Pranay Sethi supra, the Apex Court awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the claimant-respondents for loss of filial consortium. In totality of the matter, I am of the opinion that the parents, the widow and the six children (including married daughters) of the deceased should be awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation to the aged parents and the six children of the deceased. 19. The interest @ 6% awarded by the learned Tribunal seems on the lower side considering the bank and market rates of interest at the relevant time. Interest @ 9% per annum ought to have been thus awarded. It is so held and ordered accordingly. 20. As a result of the above discussion, the just and fair compensation payable jointly and severally by the respondents to the appellants is determined at Rs.40,62,042/- as calculated below: Particulars Computation / Explanation Amount (?) 1. Monthly income As proved by salary certificate 32,997/- 2. Future prospects (15%) 32,997 × 15% = 4,949.55 4,950/- 3. Total monthly income with future prospects 32,997 + 4,950 37,947 i.e. 4,55,364/- (per annum) 4. Total annual income tax as calculated by the Tribunal @ 5% That would leave a net tax annual income of Rs.4,55,364/- 10,268/- 5. Monthly income As proved by salary certificate 32,997/- 2. Future prospects (15%) 32,997 × 15% = 4,949.55 4,950/- 3. Total monthly income with future prospects 32,997 + 4,950 37,947 i.e. 4,55,364/- (per annum) 4. Total annual income tax as calculated by the Tribunal @ 5% That would leave a net tax annual income of Rs.4,55,364/- 10,268/- 5. Post tax net annual income 4,55,364– 10,268=4,45,096 4,45,096/- 6. Deduction for personal expenses (¼) 4,45,096× ¼ = 1,11,274 1,11,274/- 6.1 Annual contribution to/dependency of family 4,45,096-1,11,274 3,33,822/- 7. Multiplier (age 54 ? 11) 3,33,822× 11 36,72,042/- 8. Loss of dependency — 36,72,042/- 9. Loss of consortium @ 40,000/ each to both parents, the widow and six children as per Pranay Sethi / Magma General Insurance 40,000 × 9 3,60,000/- 10. Loss of estate 15,000/- 11. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 12. Total Compensation as revised and enhanced 36,72,042+3,60,000+15,000+ 15,000 40,62,042/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 9,84,833/- Enhancement amount 40,62,042- 9,84,833 30,77,209/- 21. The amount of compensation will bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition before the learned Tribunal till payment. 22. The compensation amount will be apportioned amongst the : claimant-appellants as under: (i) Sohani D/o Late Shri Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 34 Years, W/o Shri Hari Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Bhimkamkaur Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur. =Rs. 40,000/-. (ii) Bidami D/o Late Shri Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Jagram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Cherai, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur=Rs. 40,000/-. (iii) Sumitra D/o Late Shri Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, W/o Shrawan Kumar, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Nivai Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer=Rs.40,000/-. (iv) Leela D/o Late Shri Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 24 Years, W/o Shri Ashok, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Dhadhu, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur =Rs. 40,000/-. 23. After deduction of the above amounts aggregating Rs. 1,60,000/-, the remaining amount of compensation shall be apportioned as under: (i) Smt. Banu Devi W/o Late Shri Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Sanvrij (Udaniyo Ki Dhani), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.=50%. (ii) Danu Ram S/o Shri Hardas Ram, Aged About 80 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Sanvrij (Udaniyo Ki Dhani), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur= 15%. (iii) Smt. Tulchhi W/o Shri Danu Ram, Aged About 79 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Sanvrij (Udaniyo Ki Dhani), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. (ii) Danu Ram S/o Shri Hardas Ram, Aged About 80 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Sanvrij (Udaniyo Ki Dhani), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur= 15%. (iii) Smt. Tulchhi W/o Shri Danu Ram, Aged About 79 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Sanvrij (Udaniyo Ki Dhani), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. = 15%. (iv) Mahendra S/o Late Shri Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Sanvrij (Udaniyo Ki Dhani), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur=10%. (v) Prakash D/o Late Shri Banshi Ram @ Banshi Lal, Aged About 19 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Sanvrij (Udaniyo Ki Dhani), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur=10%. 24. The amount of compensation, if any, already paid shall be adjusted against/deducted from the amount of enhanced compensation. 25. Appeal is allowed as above. 26. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.