Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has made two fold arguments. His first submission is that at the time of accident, deceased was 30 years of age and he died in a road accident involving the tractor, which was insured with respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,89,000/- as compensation. He was doing the work of Welder. He used to weld treasure, section window, iron gates etc. His monthly income was Rs.5200/-. He was working with Mohanlal Jangid AW-3, who appeared as witness. He stated that he paid to the deceased Rs.4500/- as monthly salary. Learned Tribunal has illegally disbelieved his statement by observing that no income-tax returns etc. were filed by the claimants and no other proof of income was submitted. His second submission is based on 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). It is argued that in view of the fact that number of dependency were five, 1/4th should have been deducted towards the self expenses of the deceased and factor of dependency should be taken as 3/4th of his income. It was also argued that as per the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time for unskilled labour, monthly wages would come to Rs.2500/- and for skilled labour, it would come to Rs.2400/-. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and submitted that Tribunal has passed a just and reasonable award. The mere fact that AW-3 Mohan Lal Jangid in his statement has stated that he was getting Rs.4500/- per month cannot be accepted on his mere ipse dixit. No income tax return, no receipt, no bill nor any certificate has been produced to prove this fact. Monthly income of Rs.1800/- has been accepted on reasonable basis. It was argued that judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) cannot be applied in this case because the accident took place in the year 1998 and the aforesaid judgment was delivered subsequent thereto. 4. Monthly income of Rs.1800/- has been accepted on reasonable basis. It was argued that judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) cannot be applied in this case because the accident took place in the year 1998 and the aforesaid judgment was delivered subsequent thereto. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, I find that even if the income of Rs.4500/- per month as has been stated to be by AW-3 Mohan Lal Jangid is not accepted, even then, monthly wages of the deceased ought to have been considered atleast to Rs.2100/- although factually, from the evidence it is shown that he was working as a Welder and at the same time, 1/3rd deduction ought not to have been made looking to the dependency of five and only 1/4th deduction ought to have been made. Although multiplier of 18 has been correctly applied. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed. After making 1/4th deduction from the monthly assessed income of Rs.2100/- i.e. Rs.525/-, the amount comes to Rs.1575/- and if this amount is multiply by 12 months and again by multiplier of 18 i.e. 1575x12x18 the amount comes to Rs.3,40,200/- + Rs.30,000/- already awarded under the head of loss of matrimonial life to appellant-wife and loss of love and affection to the children. The net amount now payable to the claimants comes to 340200+30000= 370200. The award of Rs.2,89,200/- is enhanced to Rs.3,70,200/-. The enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs.81,000/- (370200–289200). The appellants are entitled to received interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.81,000/- together with interest @7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition. Record be transmitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith.