JUDGMENT : Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short, “the Tribunal”) the claimants in M.V.O.P. No. 16 of 1999 has filed this appeal. I have heard Sri K.K. Kishore representing Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Venkateswarlu representing Sri P. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2. Despite service of notice, no one entered appearance for respondent No. 3. For the death of one Chakra Rao in a motor accident involving lorry bearing registration No. ATP 2323 belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, the appellants herein filed their claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,64,600/- after holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants urged two contentions, namely; that the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was taken as 36 and that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) the relevant multiplier is 15 and that instead, the Tribunal has taken 14 as the multiplier. The learned counsel further submitted that in the same judgment i.e., Sarla Verma (1 supra) it was held that where the deceased left behind the dependents in excess of 6, deduction of 1/5th of income towards personal expenses of the deceased should be made and that the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd. I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra), after considering the judgments in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176 , UP State Raod Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 (4) SCC 362 and New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Charlie, 2005 (10) SCC 720 standardized the various parameters including the multiplier in assessing the loss of income. The Supreme Court held that if the age of the deceased was between 36 and 40 years, the appropriate multiplier is 15. Therefore, the deceased having been aged 36 years at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier should have been 15 and not 14, as applied by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that if the age of the deceased was between 36 and 40 years, the appropriate multiplier is 15. Therefore, the deceased having been aged 36 years at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier should have been 15 and not 14, as applied by the Tribunal. Similarly, in Sarla Verma (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that where the number of family members exceed 6, deduction of 1/5th of income towards personal expenses of the deceased should be made. In the instant case, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd. For the abovementioned reasons, the award of the Tribunal is modified by directing that the compensation should be computed by taking 15 as the multiplier and deducting 1/5th instead of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Subject to the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.