RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri, District Ajmer in MAC No.49/2003 vide award dated 21/9/2005. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in assailing the award of the Tribunal is that the learned Tribunal erred in law while applying the multiplier of 13, whereas the age of deceased-Manoj Kumar being 18 years, multiplier of 18 should have been applied instead of 13 as per 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). His second contention is that the deceased was unmarried and hence as per the provisions of the Act of 1988, 1/3rd cannot be deducted towards the own expenses of the deceased, whereas the Tribunal has erred in law while deducting 1/3rd under this head. His third contention is that the learned Tribunal has erred in law while accepting the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.1800/-, whereas it should be accepted at Rs.7,000/- per month, which he was earning from supply of the Grocery items being Grocery Merchant, which fact is fortified from the statement of AW4-Kalu Ram and AW5 Gulab Chand. Award of interest @6% is also towards the lower side. On other non-pecuniary heads also, learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have argued that the award is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity having been passed in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned-award, I find that so far as applicability of multiplier of 13 is concerned, learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 on the age of father of the deceased, who was 46 years of age because as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra, multiplier of 13 is a right multiplier for the age group of 46-50 years. So far as not deducting 1/3rd towards the self expenses of the deceased on the premise that deceased was unmarried and hence as per second schedule of the Act of 1988, 1/3rd was not liable to deducted, is not acceptable because the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd because the learned Tribunal added 50% towards the future prospects of the deceased accepting the monthly income of the deceased Rs.1800/- per month despite the fact that there was no documentary proof on record regarding his monthly income and statements of AW4-Kalu Ram and AW5 Gulab Chand in this regard also did not support by any documentary evidence. After adding 50%, learned Tribunal computed monthly income of the deceased to be of Rs.2700/- and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom, accepted income at Rs.1800/- per month. Learned Tribunal did not commit any error in deducting 1/3rd and thereafter accepting the income at Rs.1800/- because the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident being 18 years of age and as per the judgment in Sarla Verma supra, 50% towards self expenses in the case of deceased being unmarried should have been deducted from the loss of income. However, the learned Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd under this head. Compensation rather deserves to be reduced. So far as interest part is concerned, 6% p.a. is quite reasonable and justified. On other non-pecuniary heads also, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,200/-, which cannot be held to be unreasonable. Amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- therefore cannot be held to be meager amount of compensation or towards the lower side. 5. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.