ORDER S.C. Sinho, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the claimants against the award dated 17-5-2010 passed by First Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 39/2008. By impugned award the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,63,000/- with 6% interest per annum to the claimants by way of compensation for death of Jivanlal husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2. 2. The accident as pleaded took place on 17-3-2008 near Motighat on Lipre road when deceased Jivanlal husband of the appellant No. 1 and son of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was going on his motorcycle towards his home meanwhile truck No. HR-38/L-9796 owned by respondent No. 2, rashly and negligently with high speed driven by respondent No. 1 Jagdish Prasad dashed the motorcycle resulting in his death on the spot. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 5,63,000/- along with 6% interest. Claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of the quantum and further submitted that Tribunal has committed a mistake while dividing the amount in 4 part whereas appellant/wife and his son got 50% and his parents, i.e., respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was granted 50% of the awarded amount. 3. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased was working in Raymond Company (Textile Division Chhindwara) and various pay certificates, i.e., Exh. P-14 to P-26 are also filed. Shri Tiwari submitted that as per last pay certificate (Exh. P-27) deceased was getting gross pay of Rs. 6,252.62 even then the Tribunal has held his income as Rs. 5,000/- per month. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that deceased has left behind himself widow lady, appellant No. 2 a minor son and old mother and father. 4. In Raghuvir Singh Matolya and others vs. Hari Singh Malviya and others, (2009) 15 SCC 363 : AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2222, this Court has observed that dearness allowance and house rent allowance should be included for computation of income of the deceased. 5. In the present case, Raymond Limited (Textile Division, Chhindwara) certified that the deceased had drawn his salary for the month of January, 2008 as under: Basic : 1091.42 Basic-B : 56.43 Basic-D : 512.17 Basic-E : 487.41 VDA 1676.00 HRA 122.98 HRA-1 252.40 HRA-3 : 154.00 Attn. 5. In the present case, Raymond Limited (Textile Division, Chhindwara) certified that the deceased had drawn his salary for the month of January, 2008 as under: Basic : 1091.42 Basic-B : 56.43 Basic-D : 512.17 Basic-E : 487.41 VDA 1676.00 HRA 122.98 HRA-1 252.40 HRA-3 : 154.00 Attn. Alnc-2 : 69.67 Attn. Alnc-3 142.05 Attn. Alnc-4 : 133.91 Prod. Alnc-2 : 459.99 Prod. Alnc-3 : 822.56 Prod. Alnc-4 : 539.06 Co-Alnc : 142.05 Conv.Alnc : 174.17 Conv. Alnc2 : 133.91 Overtime : 355.69 Wage Diff. : 103.00 Gross Total : 7428.87 PF : 421.00 Canteen Ded. : 165.00 LIC : 270.00 Benevolent Fund : 482.00 Rec.-Dep. : 500.00 Credit-Loan : 730.61 Net Pay : 4783.00 6. Based on the aforementioned judgments and on Sunil Sharma and others vs. Bachitar Singh and others, 2011 AIR SCW 2811, I am of the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA are done on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased. Further deduction towards conveyance allowance 142, 174, 133 and overtime 355 are to be deducted, i.e., (142 + 174 + 133 + 355 = 804) and accordingly, his monthly income comes to Rs. 6624/- (7428-804). Thus, the annual income of the deceased would amount to 6624 x 12 = Rs. 79,488/-. 7. The Tribunal deducted 40% from the income of the deceased by way of personal expenses. I am of the view that Court below erred in doing the same in light of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (4) MPLJ (SC) 96 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : 2008 AIR SCW 4992, wherein this Court held : I am of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six. 8. Hence, I hold that as the deceased was married, having a son and old mother as dependent hence deduction of l/3rd should be made to his income by way of personal expenses. 8. Hence, I hold that as the deceased was married, having a son and old mother as dependent hence deduction of l/3rd should be made to his income by way of personal expenses. After such deduction, the income of the deceased would thus amount to Rs. 52,992/- (1/3rd of 79,488/-), which I round off to Rs. 53,000/-. 9. In the present case the deceased was aged about 35 years. Considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 15 is to be applied. Accordingly, dependency comes to Rs. 53,000 x 15 = 7,95,000/-. 10. Apart from this Tribunal has granted Rs. 23,000/- for consortium, funeral and damage of motorcycle. 11. Thus, total compensation payable to the claimants-appellants is Rs. 8,18,000/- (7,95,000 + 23,000) with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing the claim petition. 12. Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has committed a mistake while granting 50% of the amount to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, i.e., father and mother of the deceased on account of dependency. 13. It is settled position that only mother can receive compensation on death of her married son. Deceased has left behind him widow wife, a son and mother, therefore, instead of 50%, 33% of award amount be granted to the respondent No. 5 mother of the deceased. Tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount to the claimants as held in G. M., Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 MPLJ (SC) 520 : (1994) 2 SCC 176 . 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 15. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to make the aforesaid payment, after adjusting payment, if any, is made. Such payment is to be made within three months. No costs.