In the present case, the income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month. However, as per the salary slip (Ex.P3) the income of the deceased was Rs.10,869/- per month. There is no reason to disbelieve the salary slip as the same was issued by the office of Director General of Police, Punjab. Income of the deceased being Sub-Inspector, is accordingly assessed at Rs.10,869/- per month. As per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77] , the deduction of 1/4th ought to have been made keeping in view the number of the claimants in the present case. Further, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded towards loss of future prospects whereas an addition of 50% ought to have been made as per the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) . The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of ‘16’ which as per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), keeping in view the age of the deceased, ought to have been ‘15’. Further, no amount has been awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head of loss of consortium. The claimant-appellants would thus also be entitled to compensation under the conventional heads as well as towards loss of consortium as per the settled law in the cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and N. Jayasree (supra) .
