JUDGMENT : Per Jayant Patel, J. Admit. Mr.Anal S. Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Shashikant S. Gade, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, main contesting Insurance Companies, waive service of notice of admission and they are agreeable for final disposal of the appeal in absence of any notice to respondents No.1, 3 and 4, since ultimately the liability is to be borne by the Insurance Companies. 2. The present appeal arises against the judgement and award dated 17.11.2007 passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.53/2007, whereby the compensation has been awarded of Rs. 5,56,000/- with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 22.1.2007 at about 0.15 hours, the accident took place near Fulgram Patia and the vehicle of the opponent before the Tribunal was involved. It appears that in the accident, the deceased Pravinbhai Vallabhbhai has expired. The claim petition was filed by the dependent members of the family being MACP No.53 of 2007 for the compensation of Rs. 20 lac. The Tribunal, ultimately, after hearing both the sides, passed the aforesaid judgement and award. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr.Amar Mithani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant original claimant and Mr.Shah as well as Mr.Gade for the main contesting Insurance Companies. 5. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal keeping in view the age of the deceased is much low inasmuch as in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the multiplier could have been 15, whereas the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13, therefore, there is an error committed by the Tribunal. 6. He raised the second contention that as the number of dependent members of the family is 5, the deduction of ¼th could have been considered, instead of ?rd for the purpose of assessing the compensation. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC, 121 and more particularly the observations made at paragraphs 30 and 42 of the said decision. 7. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC, 121 and more particularly the observations made at paragraphs 30 and 42 of the said decision. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Companies have not been able to show as to why the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra) should not be made applicable to the present case. However, they only submitted that the Tribunal has exercised the discretion and has passed the award. 8. We find that the contention deserves consideration. In the above referred decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (supra), at paragraph 30, it was observed thus, for the purpose of deduction of personal and living expenses of the deceased :- "30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (?rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (¼th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (?th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six." 9. Further at paragraph 42, for the purpose of multiplier, the observations have been made as under :- "42. Further at paragraph 42, for the purpose of multiplier, the observations have been made as under :- "42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 10. If the facts of the present case are examined in light of the aforesaid, it appears that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding the multiplier. If the deceased was aged 38 years on the basis of his birth date in the licence as was 26.3.1969, the correct multiplier could have been 15, whereas the Tribunal awarded multiplier of 13. 11. Further on the aspects of deduction of personal expenses, the total number of family members is between 4 to 6 i.e. 5, in the present case, who were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, keeping in view the same, the deduction as was required was ¼th from the total income assessed for the purpose of compensation and could not be ?rd as per the view taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, it can be said that on the aforesaid both the aspects namely; of applying multiplier and deduction, the error has been committed by the Tribunal, which deserves to be interfered with. Applying the correct multiplier of 15 and the deduction of ¼th as personal expenses, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. 12. No other contention has been raised. 13. In view of the above, out of the income assessed of Rs. 10,000/- per month, ¼th deduction would come to Rs. 2,500/- per month, therefore, the net income would be of Rs. 7,500/- per month and the multiplier applicable shall be 15 and consequently the yearly income for the purpose of compensation would be Rs. 13. In view of the above, out of the income assessed of Rs. 10,000/- per month, ¼th deduction would come to Rs. 2,500/- per month, therefore, the net income would be of Rs. 7,500/- per month and the multiplier applicable shall be 15 and consequently the yearly income for the purpose of compensation would be Rs. 90,000/- and the multiplier shall be 15. Hence, the amount would come to Rs. 13,50,000/- Out of the said amount, 50% of the liability is fixed. Hence, the net amount of compensation under the said head shall be Rs. 6,75,000/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs. 5,56,000/-. Consequently, the claimant shall be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs. 1,19,000/- plus proportionate interest and the cost. 14. The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent with cost. Appeal partly allowed.