Dr. Satish Chandra, J.- Present appeal un'der Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 22 of 2007 whereby a sum of Rs.1,37,000 was awarded alongwith 6% interest per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased Mohd. Saleem was coming back to home after sale of vegetable. When he reached near Bramhababa at Faizabad-Sultanpur Road, a truck bearing No. U. P.-42 3030 driven by its driver rashly and negligently, coming from reverse direction, hits the deceased who died on the spot. The aforesaid truck was insured with the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company on the date of accident. The claimants of the deceased have preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after examining the evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,37,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants alongwith 6% interest. Still not being satisfied, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the accident; insurance policy; and driving licence are not indispute. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation. 4. In the instant case, since the deceased was aged about 45 years, hence, multiplier of 13 was applied. No evidence was furnished pertaining to the income of the deceased, who was a retailer of vegetable and fruits. The Tribunal has taken the notional income off 15,000 per annum. After deducting l/3rd for the personal expenditure, Rs. 10,000 per annum was taken for the purpose of computation. Thus, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000 x 13 = Rs. 1,30,000. In addition, Rs. 7,000 was awarded for cremation etc. Thus, final compensation was awarded for Rs.1,37,000. 5. It may be mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another, 2008 (2) TAG 394: 2008 (3) AWC 2346 (SC), followed by this Bench in Guddi Singh and others u. Baboo and others, 2010 (28) LCD 857: 2010 (2) ACCD 1139 (All): 2010 (4) AWC 3575 (LB), observed that minimum income even notionally should not be less than Rs. 3,000 per month. 6. Accordingly, in the present case, the income of the deceased is assessed @ Rs. 3,000 per month. 6. Accordingly, in the present case, the income of the deceased is assessed @ Rs. 3,000 per month and deducted l/3rd in lieu of personal expenses. Thus, the net income comes to 2,000, i.e., Rs. 24,000 per year. Since, the deceased was aged about 45 years, hence multiplier of 13 will have to apply as per second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Needless to mention that regarding the multiplier, both the parties were agreed before the Tribunal for applying the multiplier of 13. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 13 = Rs. 3,12,000. In addition to it, the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses; Rs. 2,500 as loss of estate and Rs. 5,000 as loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.3,21,500 (Rupees three lacs twenty one thousand five hundred). 8. In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is allowed. The impugned award dated 17.8.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad is modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 3,21,500 in terms of the impugned award alongwith 6% interest. 9. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No cost.