JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Amravati in Claim Petition No.134 of 1992 on 15th December, 1995. The Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, has exonerated the insurer viz. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Owner of the vehicle Sayyad Liyakat Ali has filed First Appeal No.180 of 1996 challenging part of the A ward exonerating the Insurance Company while original claimants have filed First Appeal No.336 of 1996 assailing similar exoneration and in addition, for enhancement of compensation. 2. Learned Tribunal held that truck bearing No.MTV-2387, an offending vehicle was not insured at all since the papers produced before the Tribunal were pertaining to truck bearing No. MRV -2387. However, during the pendency of appeals. Development Officer of the Insurance Company has filed affidavit on 10-3-1996 that the vehicle insured by him was bearing No. MTV -2387, but due to inadvertence, the registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned as MRV -2387. It is also clarified in the affidavit that the offending vehicle was duly insured as on the date of accident in question. It is, therefore, clear that the Insurance Company was wrongly exonerated. That part of the order of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is hereby set aside. 3. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,59,000/- to claimants together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Learned Counsel for claimants contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration monthly income of the deceased which was Rs.2.l 00/- per month by way of salary and salary slip was duly proved on record at Exhibit 37. He further contended that the learned Tribunal committed error in computing "just and reasonable" compensation. 4. The victim had widow, two sons a daughter and mother totally dependent upon him. His age at the time of death was 46 years. In Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. DTC and Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121: [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)]. the Apex Court has held as to how income of the deceased should be determined. Out of the said income, a deduction should be made in respect of the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of persona] and living expenses. Vs. DTC and Anr. reported in (2009)6 SCC 121: [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)]. the Apex Court has held as to how income of the deceased should be determined. Out of the said income, a deduction should be made in respect of the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of persona] and living expenses. If in the present case, persona] expenses are deducted at 1/4th of the total income. it would come to Rs.525/- and the amount that would remain available to dependents would be Rs.1.575/-. Considering this as a monthly loss of dependency. it would come to Rs.18.900/- per annum and if" 13" is chosen as the appropriate multiplier. Rs.2,45.700/- would be the amount of compensation payable to the appellants in First Appeal No.336 of 1996. As held by the Tribunal, the claimants would be entitled to loss of consortium, pain. mental agony in the conventional sum of Rs.15.000/-. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to receive Rs.2,60.700/- from all the respondents jointly and severally, however, together with reasonable interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization and not at the enhanced rate of 12% per annum as directed by the Tribunal. Hence, the order. 5. Impugned Award is modified. Claimants are entitled to receive Rs.2.60.700/by way of compensation from all the original respondents jointly and severally with proportionate costs. Respondents are at liberty to share the amount of compensation equally between themselves. The Tribunal shall disburse the amount if any deposited before it to the claimants forthwith. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.