JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 11.2.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam in Claim Case No. 101 of 2008. One Kamlesh had suffered injuries in the motor accident which had taken place on 3.6.2008 and had died on account of those injuries. Accordingly, the appellants who are the dependants of the deceased had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that deceased was earning Rs. 1,000 per month and assessed the age of the deceased between 25-30 years. The Tribunal after applying the multiplier of 13 calculated the amount of loss of dependency at Rs. 2,04,000 and adding the amount under the other heads, passed an award of Rs. 2,13,500 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle and the issue of liability as to who is liable to pay compensation. Claims Tribunal has already recorded the finding on these issues in favour of the appellants. None of those findings has been assailed at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/insurance company by filing cross-appeal or cross-objection. Thus it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on the said issues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in impugned award is inadequate and on lower side. He has assailed the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that Tribunal has not properly considered the material on record while awarding compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company has made submissions in support of the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is found that the appellant was doing the work of tractor driver. Chandabai, AW 1, has stated before the Tribunal that he was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is found that the appellant was doing the work of tractor driver. Chandabai, AW 1, has stated before the Tribunal that he was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Looking to the age of the deceased, nature of his work and the year of accident, it is found that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000 which ought to have been calculated at Rs. 3,000 per month. It is also worth noting that there are as many as five dependants in this case, therefore, the loss of dependency should have been calculated at 3/4th in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , whereas the Tribunal has calculated at 2/3rd only. The Tribunal also committed an error in applying the multiplier though the age of the deceased was 25 years as per the evidence on record. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 36,000 x 3/4 = Rs. 27,000 x 18 = Rs. 4,86,000 whereas the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,04,000 under this head. Therefore, the amount awarded by Claims Tribunal under this head is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 2,82,000. It is also noted that Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of love and affection to the respondents. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs. 18,000 under this head. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. 7. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part with costs. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) which will be payable to the appellants in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and which will bear interest at the same rate as directed by the Tribunal. 8. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant submits that he confines his appeal to Rs. 3,00,000 only and the same is directed accordingly. 8. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant submits that he confines his appeal to Rs. 3,00,000 only and the same is directed accordingly. The appellants are directed to pay necessary court-fees as per amendment made by the State Government on the enhanced amount within a period of ten weeks. Office is directed to prepare memo of costs accordingly.