N. A. BRITTO, J. :- The dispute between the parties is as regards the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) as against a claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-.

2. The learned MACT (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) has awarded compensation of Rs. 21,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on a sum of Rs. 3,48,896/- (excluding future loss of dependency) from the date of the petition till the entire amount is paid.

3. The accident took place on 6-12-2001 between a scooter driven by the deceased and truck No. KA 213/498 driven by respondent No.4, owned by respondent No.5 and insured with the appellant herein, who was respondent No. 3, in the claim petition.

4. The claim petition was filed by the claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 3) who are the widow and children of the deceased Savio Nigel Fernandes. Claimant No. 1 was 32 years of age, claimant No.2 was 4 years of age, and claimant No.3 was 2 years of age.

5. The deceased was 32 years of age. The deceased was working as a Junior Manager in the Production Department of the German Remedies Ltd. To prove the income of the deceased the claimants had examined the Senior Manager in the Department of Personnel Administration of the said Company and who had given the details of the salary drawn by the deceased. He had categorically stated that the total salary of the deceased was Rs. 2,37,627/- per year and in addition, the deceased was getting medical reimbursement of Rs. 6,250/- and that he was given average raise of 20.59% in the salary for the year 2001-2002. He had also stated that the deceased was earning a basic pay of Rs. 9,950/- and was getting HRA of Rs. 1,990/-, educational allowance of Rs. 600/and conveyance allowance of s. 1,100/-, thus a total amount of s. 13,640/- per month besides Rs. 14,925/- as LTA and Rs. 20,000/- as bonus per year. He had prcduced the certificate issued by the Company at Exhibit 44.

6. Nevertheless, the learned MACT came to the conclusion that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 18,965/- including conveyance allowance and further held that conveyance allowance could not be considered for the purpose of computing compensation. The learned MACT therefore considered monthly income of deceased as Rs. 15,792/- and then deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and taking the multiplier of 17, worked out the loss of dependency at Rs. 21,47,712/-. The learned MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2,000/- for transport and other miscellaneous expenses and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of an estate and thus awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,60,000/-.

7. Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned MACT was right in excluding the conveyance allowance and in case the said allowance was deducted and then another 1/3rd was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the compensation payable would not have worked out to more than Rs. 17,17,054.40 by using the same multiplier.

8. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri Sonak, the learned Counsel on behalf of the claimants that conveyance allowance is also part of the income and in this context Shri Sonak has placed reliance on the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and ors., 2008(3) MhLJ (SC) 550 = 2008(2) SCC 763. Learned Counsel has further submitted that it was undisputed that the total salary per annum of the deceased was Rs. 2,37,627/- as stated by the said Senior Manager, Personnel and Administration of the said company, and besides the deceased was also entitled to medical reimbursement up to a maximum of Rs. 6,250/- and was given an average raise of 20.59% in salary for the financial year 2001-02. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that the evidence of the said witness wherein he had stated that the yearly emoluments in the year 2005 of Junior Department Manager was Rs. 2,60,000/- and the deceased had promotiona