1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the Award dated 18.3.2011 and seeks enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts are that on 03.10.2006 Shri Harjeet Singh while working in front of import and export examination area, ICD, Tughlakadbad, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi was hit by a crane driven by respondent No.1. On account of the accident he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. Based on the evidence on record the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

4. On compensation a total compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- was awarded, Loss of dependency of Rs.9,00,000/- was awarded, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs.30,000/-towards love and affection, Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-was awarded towards loss of consortium.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants seeks enhancement of the compensation. Various submissions have been made on this count. It is firstly submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased as 36 years whereas he was 32 years old. Reliance is placed on the post-mortem report. Hence, it is urged that the appropriate multiplier should have been used is 16 and not 15 as used by the Tribunal. It is next urged that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased inasmuch as there were four dependents. 1/4th should have been deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. The next submission pertains to future prospects. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- and did not increase the same for future prospects by 50% as per the settled law.

6. It is next urged that the evidence on record shows that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,500/-per month which included Rs.2,050/- as conveyance and Rs.950/-for other allowances. It is urged that the Tribunal has wrongly discarded the conveyance and other allowances and accepted the salary of the deceased based on the basic salary of Rs.7,500/- per month.

7. The next submission pertains to compensation for non-pecuniary damages under the heads of loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate. Lastly, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition which is on the lower side. It is urged that the interest @ 9% p.a. should have been awarded.

8. Coming to the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants pertaining to the age of the deceased. The post-mortem report issued by Safdarjung Hospital Ex.PW1/B shows the age of the deceased as 32 years. The Tribunal had taken the age of 36 years based on the MLC. I accept the contention of the appellants and based on the post-mortem I take the age as 32 years. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be of 16 while computing of loss of dependency.

9. Coming to the submission pertaining to deductions on account of personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has while computing loss of dependency deducted 1/3rd.

10. A perusal of the claim petitions shows that there are four claimants including the father, the mother, the brother and the widow of the deceased. Normally, a father would not be considered to be financially dependent upon the son unless there is evidence to the contrary placed on record. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased Sh.Jasvinder Singh, by way of an affidavit does not even mention a sentence stating that he was financially dependent upon the deceased or would be unable to earn his livelihood. Accordingly, the father cannot be considered to be dependent upon the deceased. Regarding the brother of the deceased, there is no clarity regarding the age of the brother, namely, appellant No.3 Manjeet Singh. In all probability even if he is not yet earning, he would be dependent