ORDER 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the award dated 18.12.2003 passed by Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 178/2002. 2. Briefly stated on 16.11.200 1 deceased Ramlal husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 to 4 while going on foot was dashed by a Tankar bearing Registration No. GJ I-BB. 9161 driven by the first respondent owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent near Langdi Mata Mandir Village Jetpura District Dhar. As a result of the said dash, deceased Ramlal sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the 3. A claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.21,31,000/- from the respondents. The Claims Tribunal after framing issues and recording evidence led by the parties awarded compensation of Rs. 3,58,600/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till payment to the appellants. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. The case of the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and it deserves to be enhanced. According to the claimants the assessment of the income of the deceased has not been done properly by the Claims Tribunal 5. Gangabai appellant No.1 in her deposition stated that her husband was doing business of Grocery Shop in Village Jetpura and out of the said business, he was earning Rs. 25,000/- per annum. In addition he was doing the business of selling of milk and out of the said business, he was earning additionally Rs.40,000/- per annum. She also stated that the deceased was also earning through the agricultural land possessed by him. 6. After assessment of her evidence and the documentary evidence led by her, the Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that there is no positive evidence about the income of the deceased, but his income can safely assumed to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Deducting Rs. 1,200/- for his personal expenditure and adopting multiplier of 16 for the deceased aged 35 years, the Tribunal calculated compensation to the tune of Rs.3,45,600/-. In addition Rs.5,000/- for consortium, Rs.2,000/- to each of the children for loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses have been awarded totaling Rs.3,58,600/- was awarded. 7. Deducting Rs. 1,200/- for his personal expenditure and adopting multiplier of 16 for the deceased aged 35 years, the Tribunal calculated compensation to the tune of Rs.3,45,600/-. In addition Rs.5,000/- for consortium, Rs.2,000/- to each of the children for loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses have been awarded totaling Rs.3,58,600/- was awarded. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the Tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal has also adopted the correct multiplier of 16 as the age of the deceased was 35. However, in my view the Tribunal ought to have deducted Rs.1,000/- (l/3rd of the total income) for the personal expenditure of the deceased instead of Rs.1,200/-. Thus, taking Rs.2,000/- per annum, the annual dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-. By applying multiplier of 16 the amount of compensation is arrived at Rs.3,84,000/-. In addition Rs. 5,000/- is awarded for the consortium and Rs. 2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. The total compensation for which the appellants deserve comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-+5,000+2,000+2,500 = Rs. 3,91,500/-. 8. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,91,500/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application till payment. No order as to costs.