RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.2,41,500/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in MAC No.611/2002 vide award dated 25/06/2005. 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 15, whereas the age of deceased-Hanuman being 22 years, higher multiplier should have been applied 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. His third contention is that the learned Tribunal has erred in law while accepting the monthly income of the deceased after deducting 1/3rd to be Rs.1200/-, whereas it should be accepted at Rs.7,000/- per month, which he was earning from dairy business, cultivation, sale of vegetables and labour work, which fact is fortified from the statement of his father AW1-Jagdish. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and 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 15 is concerned, learned Tribunal has rightly applied the same taking the age of parents between 40-45 years because the deceased was unmarried aged 22 years and as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra, multiplier of 15 in such like matters is a right multiplier for the age group of 40-45 of parents. 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 rather made deductions of 1/3rd, which is not permissible as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra because deceased was unmarried aged 22 years and in those cases, Supreme Court provided deduction of ½(50%) towards the self expenses of the deceased. So far as not accepting income of the deceased to be of Rs.7,000/- per month, there was no documentary proof on record regarding his monthly income and statement of AW1-Jagdish, father of the deceased in this regard also did not support by any documentary evidence. At the relevant time, minimum wages notified by the Government for the skilled labour were Rs.60/- and thus accepting monthly income of the deceased to be of Rs.1800/- cannot be said to be unreasonable. However, deductions of 1/3rd is towards the lower side and 50% deductions should have been made towards contribution of the deceased to the parents. Computing thus, the compensation is rather liable to be reduced. However, compensation granted on other non-pecuniary heads appears to be towards the lower side, which is liable to be slightly enhanced. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Rs.8,500/- is additionally awarded under all other non-pecuniary heads. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,41,500/- is thus enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- with interest as per rate awarded by the Tribunal, on the enhanced amount of compensation.