Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation dissatisfied with the award dated 31.8.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sawaimadhopur whereby, award for a sum of Rs.2,45,800/- was awarded as compensation. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal was wholly unjustified in not accepting the income of the deceased from his business of selling milk whereas, evidence has clearly proved that he died in accident while he was going to sell the milk on his bicycle. Ex.P.9 has clearly proved that he was carrying two milk tanks on both the sides of the bicycle going while he was going to sell the milk. Learned Tribunal has accepted his income only as an unskilled labour from the agriculture whereas, the above aspect has been completely overlooked. Besides, learned counsel argued that no compensation has been awarded on the head of love and affection to the wife and child. 1/3rd deduction has been made whereas, in view of dependency of four, 1/4th deduction should have been made according to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC). 3. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has opposed the appeal and submitted that the award is just and reasonable. No proof was given that the deceased was regularly doing the business of selling milk and even though the Tribunal accepted his income as Rs.60/- per day and on that basis accepted his monthly income at Rs.1800/- and made calculations on that basis. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, I find that once it was proved that when the accident took place, deceased was carrying milk tanks on his bicycle and they were recovered along with the bicycle, the fact about his being handicapped in the business of selling of milk was implicitly proved. Learned Tribunal ought to have therefore taken that aspect into consideration. 5. Income of Rs.1800/- per month accepted by the Tribunal deserves to be marginally increased to Rs.2000/- per month and keeping in view the fact that there are four dependents, 1/4th deduction should be made instead of 1/3rd deduction being made towards the self expenses of the deceased. Learned Tribunal ought to have therefore taken that aspect into consideration. 5. Income of Rs.1800/- per month accepted by the Tribunal deserves to be marginally increased to Rs.2000/- per month and keeping in view the fact that there are four dependents, 1/4th deduction should be made instead of 1/3rd deduction being made towards the self expenses of the deceased. Similarly, appellants also deserve to receive Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection towards wife and children. Multiplier of 17 instead of 11 should be applied in the present case. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that 1/4th deduction towards the self expenses shall be made instead of 1/3rd deduction. Instead of multiplier of 11, multiplier of 17 is applied in the present case. Appellants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection to the wife and children. Award however on other pecuniary heads is maintained. 7. After 1/4th deduction from the monthly income of Rs.2,000/-, appellants are entitled to receive Rs.1,500/- per month. After applying the multiplier of 17 i.e. 1500x12x17, the amount comes to Rs.3,06,000/-. After adding Rs.15,000/-, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,21,000/-. Appellants shall be entitled to receive interest @7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. on Rs.75,200/- (3,21,000-2,45,800) from the date of filing of the claim petition.