Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—These two appeals are directed against common award dated 14.09.2009 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh (Ajmer) in MAC Case No.276/2007, by which learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- as compensation to claimants in a death claim case. 2. A claim petition was filed by five claimants for accidental death of one Gulab Bai involving motorcycle No.RJ-01-14M-2680, which was insured with National Insurance Company Limited. While the claimants have approached this court for enhancement of the compensation, the insurance company has filed the appeal assailing the quantum of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for insurance company has argued that deceased Gulab Bai was mother of claimants and claimants cannot be said to be wholly dependent on her income. According to judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 2007 (10) S.C.C. 643 = RLW 2007(2) SC 1384, a person, who is not dependent, cannot maintain a claim petition for payment of compensation. It was argued that age of the deceased was wrongly taken as 45 years. In the postmortem report, her age was mentioned as 48 years, as against which there is no other documentary evidence, therefore, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied. There was no basis for taking her income at Rs.100/- per day as minimum wages, because such minimum wages was fixed vide government notification dated 24.05.2008 in supersession of earlier notification dated 20.07.2004, wherein the minimum wages of skilled labourer was Rs.81/- per day, which was prevalent at the relevant time. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that there were five claimants and, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd should not have been made. It was argued that since the minimum income of Rs.3000/- was accepted, no deduction out of that should have been made. Certain specific amount should also have been awarded on the head of future prospects. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that in so far as dispute about age of the deceased, the same multiplier may be applicable for the age group between 45-50 years and, therefore, multiplier of 15 has been rightly applied. All the claimants are sons of the deceased, who was widow and was looking after the entire family. All the claimants are sons of the deceased, who was widow and was looking after the entire family. It cannot therefore be accepted that she would have utility to the family and that her income may not be accepted even at Rs.3000/- per month, particularly when evidence suggests that she was doing agriculture work and dairy farming. AW-1 Jhuta Ram has proved this fact. Acceptance of Rs.100/- per day as wages of the deceased and on that basis Rs.3000/- per month cannot be said to be unjust or otherwise unreasonable or excessive. A sum of Rs.5000/- to each claimant has been awarded for loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, which is just and reasonable. Deduction of 1/3rd in the facts of the present case can be justified because all the sons are major and, therefore, it can be certainly accepted that the deceased would have been spending on herself also. The award of Rs.3,90,000/- as compensation cannot be said excessive but at the same time I do not find any case for enhancement of the compensation. Both the appeals are dismissed.