JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of dependents of deceased Abdul Mabud, for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge) Khetri, vide judgment dated 6.5.2006, whereby a total sum of Rs. 2,87,200/-, was awarded by way of compensation for the death caused in the accident. 3. The only challenge in the appeal pertains to quantum of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was survived by his widow and five children which includes three daughters and two sons apart from his mother. Thus, he had a family of seven persons to support and as such ⅕th amount as against the expenses of the deceased is required to be deducted by following the judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 . Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side as he was running a shop of imitation jewelery and as such his income deserves to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day looking to his dependency. Likewise, instead of 17, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, the multiplier of 16 (sic) deserves to be adopted. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5523 of 2003 decided on 5th August, 2003 State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others , wherein income of an agriculturist was assessed at the rate of Rs. 3000/- p.m. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and awarded adequate compensation which calls for no interference. 6. On hearing the rival contentions and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that the deceased is survived by seven dependant claimants out of which five are minor children apart from widow and mother of the deceased. Therefore, looking to the dependency of the deceased and the fact that the deceased was engaged as a shop keeper dealing in imitation ornaments, the income or Rs. Therefore, looking to the dependency of the deceased and the fact that the deceased was engaged as a shop keeper dealing in imitation ornaments, the income or Rs. 60/- per day assessed by the Tribunal appears to be on lower side and that deserves to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day. That apart, instead of ⅓rd, ⅕th deserves to be deducted for the expenses of the deceased following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Likewise in place of multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal, multiplier of 16 (sic) deserves to be adopted and the amount can be computed as under - "100 minus ⅕th (for his own expenses) = 80 x 30 x 12 x 16 (multiplier) = 4,60,800 minus 2,44,800 (already awarded) = 2,16,000/- (to be additionally. awarded)". 7. Accordingly, appeal of the appellants is partly allowed and the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants shall get a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/-, by way of additional enhanced compensation from the date of appeal i.e. 4.9.06, with 6% interest to be paid within three months. Thereafter, interest shall be paid @ 9% per annum. The rest of the terms of the award shall remain unchanged.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******