RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, which is awarded for a death claim. 2. Shri Rakesh Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that evidence adduced by the claimants proved that the deceased was working as a Conductor in a mini bus. He was getting salary of Rs.3,000 per month. Besides that, he used to be paid Rs.50/- per day as daily allowance for his own expenses. It was argued that the total income of the deceased should have been accepted as Rs.4,500 and even if it is accepted as Rs.3,000 per month, the deduction for his own expenses ought not to have been made because he was separately getting Rs.50/- per day for his own expenses. Even otherwise, the deduction in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.-(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), should be confined to only 1/4th of the total income keeping in view the fact that there were five claimants. 3. It was argued that the age of the deceased was 25 years and on that basis in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma, supra, multiplier of 18 should have been applied rather than 17. The compensation therefore should be enhanced in the light of the aforesaid facts. Learned counsel in this connection relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mukti (Smt.) & Anr. vs. Shri Happu Singh & Ors.-MACD 2008 (2) (Raj.) 669 = 2009(1) CCR 350 (Raj.) = 2008(4) RLW 3556 to argue that where notional income has been taken as the basis for computation of compensation, deduction for self expenses should not be made. Further only Rs.10,000 has been awarded for love and affection to all the claimants, which is quite unreasonable and unjust. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that multiplier of 17 at the age of 25 has rightly been applied and the award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly just and legal. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that in the present case, the claimant widow Wahiden Khatun has appeared as witness AW-1 and stated that her husband used to contribute Rs.3,000 per month to the family, which was his salary. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that in the present case, the claimant widow Wahiden Khatun has appeared as witness AW-1 and stated that her husband used to contribute Rs.3,000 per month to the family, which was his salary. He was separately getting Rs.50/- per day as allowance for his own expenses. The owner of the mini bus AW-2 Rafiq Mohammad has stated that the deceased was Conductor and his monthly salary was Rs.3,000 and apart from that he was getting a sum of Rs.50/- per day as allowance. He was working in mini bus RJ 14P 5158 for last one year. In this case therefore evidence clearly suggests that apart from a fixed salary, the deceased, who was working as Conductor was also used to be paid a daily allowance, which is the usual practice in the mini bus business. This daily allowance works as an incentive for the driver and the conductor to work for extra hours. If this daily allowance is held to have been proved, in that case, the deduction for self expenses may not possibly be made as rightly argued by learned counsel for the appellants, but at the same time the fact arises whether his salary can be accepted at Rs.3,000 per month. If that is accepted so, the total monthly income would come to Rs.4500, accepting which, in the absence of any concrete evidence, would be on higher side. However, in the facts of this case, monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.2100 only, also cannot be said to be just and reasonable. In order to therefore strike a balance, a sum of Rs.3,000 can be accepted as the income of the deceased to be on safer side. Having accepted the monthly income of Rs.3,000 per month, the deduction of 1/4th towards own expenses has to be made, thus the amount of Rs.2450/- has to be accepted as the sum which he would have contributed to the family. At the age of 25 years, in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma, multiplier of 18 is applied. Thus the total sum of compensation payable becomes 2250x12x18 = Rs.4,86,000. 6. On the head of consortium, the widow has to be awarded a somewhat higher amount than what is awarded to other claimants for loss of love and affection. At the age of 25 years, in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma, multiplier of 18 is applied. Thus the total sum of compensation payable becomes 2250x12x18 = Rs.4,86,000. 6. On the head of consortium, the widow has to be awarded a somewhat higher amount than what is awarded to other claimants for loss of love and affection. It is therefore directed that she shall be entitled to Rs.10,000 for loss of consortium. The other claimants are granted Rs.5,000/- each for loss of love and affection. The award of Rs.5000 on other non pecuniary heads is maintained. The award is thus modified and the quantum of compensation is accordingly enhanced from Rs.3,00,600 to Rs.5,21,000. The claimants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed.