Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Contention of learned counsel for appellants is that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.51/2011 (639/2009), has erred in accepting the income of deceased Antima Chaturvedi to be only Rs.4000/- per month. Learned counsel relied on clause 6 of second schedule appended to the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and argued that according to aforesaid clause, notional income for compensation to whose who had no income prior to accident in the case of (a) non-earning persons should be accepted at Rs.15,000/- per annum and (b) spouse Rs.1/3rd of income of the earning/survival spouse. In present case, earning spouse of deceased Antima Chaturvedi was Divakar Chaturvedi, whose income was accepted by learned Tribunal to be Rs.20,216/- per month and, therefore, 1/3rd thereof should be accepted as her income. Learned counsel argued that there were four dependents and in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), 1/4th should have been deducted towards her personal expenses rather 1/3rd. 2. On haring learned counsel for appellants and perusing the impugned award, I find that in fact there were two claim petitions; in one of which the appellants herein were also claimants with their grand-parents and learned Tribunal in that case has awarded a sum of Rs.36,38,880/- as compensation accepting the income of deceased Divakar Chaturvedi to be Rs.20,216/- per month after applying the multiplier of 15. In present case, 1/3rd income of deceased Divakar Chaturvedi cannot be taken as income of deceased wife Antima Chaturvedi, on account of whose death present claim petition was filed by appellants. Learned Tribunal has rightly accepted income of decea-sed Antima Chaturvedi at Rs.4000/- per month and on that basis, after deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses, has computed compensation taking the dependency to be 2/3rd and this is because there are only two claimants in present claim petition and therefore in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, 1/3rd has rightly been deducted. Since late Divakar Chaturvedi, husband of deceased Antima Chaturvedi, was not survival or earning spouse at the material time, as per clause 6 of second schedule, relied on by learned counsel for appellants, 1/3rd of income of deceased Divakar Chaturvedi may not form basis for computation of compensation on account of death of Antima Chaturvedi. I find no infirmity in the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal in claim petition No.51/2011 (639/09) for the death claim of deceased Antima Chaturvedi. The appeal is therefore dismissed.