ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 8645 of 2011, which has been filed for condoning delay in filing the Appeal. In filing Appeal about 106 days delay has occurred and also on memo of appeal. 2. After hearing the parties and considering the ground set forth in the petition, delay in filing the Appeal stands condoned and interlocutory application is allowed. 3. The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Act”), has been preferred for modification of the judgment dated 24.3.2011 and award dated 5.4.2011 passed by Sri Sudarshan Kumar Rai, learned Additional District Judge 1st –cum – Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Gaya, ( hereinafter referred to as “the Claims Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Case No. 11 of 2010 / 124 of 2008, for enhancement of the compensation amount. By the impugned judgment and award learned Claims Tribunal has directed the Respondent No. 1 / insurer of the offending vehicle to pay total compensation amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- after deducting Rs. 50,000/- , which was paid as interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act to the claimants, which includes Rs. 28,000/- as loss of two bullocks in the accident with amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses and loss of consortium respectively. 4. Short fact of the case is that the husband of claimant / appellant no. 1, while was moving on a bullock cart on 29.3.2008, same was dashed by a truck bearing registration no. JH-02G-9343. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The truck at the relevant time was under insurance cover of the Respondent No. 1 / New India Assurance Co. Ltd. In the said accident the husband of appellant no. 1 namely, Hulash Yadav, died, and along with him, his two bullocks also died. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed for total compensation amount of Rs. 3,00000/-. Before the Claims Tribunal stand was taken that deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Ltd. In the said accident the husband of appellant no. 1 namely, Hulash Yadav, died, and along with him, his two bullocks also died. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed for total compensation amount of Rs. 3,00000/-. Before the Claims Tribunal stand was taken that deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, since no plausible evidence was brought on record, the learned Claims Tribunal, in view of notional income, as prescribed in Schedule II of the M.V. Act i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per annum, calculated the compensation amount after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased. He has passed order for granting compensation as indicated above. The Claims Tribunal also directed for paying Rs. 28,000/- on account of loss of two bullocks. Since no appeal was preferred by the insurer i.e. Respondent No. 1, there is no need to discuss the evidence in detail. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased at the time of death due to accident was aged about 45 years and he was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He submits that there were consistent oral evidences on the point of income of deceased that was Rs. 5,000/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal, without any cogent reason, has not relied on those evidences and has preferred to calculate compensation on the basis of notional income. He submits that even the amount of notional income i.e. Rs. 15,000/- annually, was not required to be considered in the present case in view of the fact that accident in the present case had occurred in the year 2008 and Rs. 15,000/- per annum as notional income was incorporated in the M.V. Act in the year 1994. He submits that at least the deceased’ income was not required to be considered on the amount less than Rs. 36,000/- per annum in view of the fact that even as per Minimum Wages Act Rs. 100/- per day as income was applicable. He submits that this very point has already been clarified by the Apex Court in a case reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 (LAXMI DEVI AND OTHERS Versus MOHAMMAD TABBAR AND ANOTHER). It was further contended that husband of claimant / appellant no. 100/- per day as income was applicable. He submits that this very point has already been clarified by the Apex Court in a case reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 (LAXMI DEVI AND OTHERS Versus MOHAMMAD TABBAR AND ANOTHER). It was further contended that husband of claimant / appellant no. 1 died leaving behind him six claimants i.e. one wife, three sons, one daughter and widow mother, and as such, he submits that instead of deducting 1/3rd in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002 (SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS Versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER) 1/5th was required to be deducted as personal expenses. Accordingly, he submits that judgment and award requires modification and enhancement of the compensation amount. 6. Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 / New India Assurance Co. Ltd. submits that whatever compensation has been directed to be paid by the Claims Tribunal has already been paid to the claimants. Besides, the compensation amount, the Claims Tribunal has directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization of the compensation amount and even the interest amount has also been paid. He submits that, in normal course, 6% per annum interest was required to be directed to be paid, but in this case, 9% per annum interest has been paid. He submits that the judgment of the Claims Tribunal requires no interference and Appeal is fit to be rejected. However, on the question of law, so far as notional income as indicated by the Apex Court in Md. Tabbar Case (Supra) as well as deduction of 1/5th as personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd as enumerated in Sarla Verma Case (Supra) are concerned, he does not dispute the same. 7. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, particularly, the law settled by the Apex Court, this court is of the opinion that judgment and award requires interference. Taking the income of deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum, on the ground that, at least, the deceased was entitled to get Rs. 7. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, particularly, the law settled by the Apex Court, this court is of the opinion that judgment and award requires interference. Taking the income of deceased as Rs. 36,000/- per annum, on the ground that, at least, the deceased was entitled to get Rs. 100/- per day as minimum wages, the compensation amount is required to be modified, and since the deceased has left behind him six dependents, so in view of Sarla Verma case (Supra) deduction should be 1/5th instead of 1/3rd, and as such, from Rs. 36,000/-, 1/5th is required to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased, and thereafter, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 28,800/- per annum [Rs. 36,000/- – Rs. 7,200/- ( i.e. 1/5 x Rs. 36,000/- = Rs. 7,200/-)]. The age of deceased at the time of death was 45 years and accordingly Rs. 28,800/- is multiplied with 15 in view of Schedule II of M.V. Act and as such total compensation amount comes to Rs. 432000/-. So far as funeral expenses, loss of consortium and amount of loss of two bullocks are concerned, the court is of the opinion that it requires no interference. Accordingly the judgment and award is modified and compensation amount is enhanced to Rs. 432000/-. The Respondent No. 1/ insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 432000/- to the claimant / appellants after deducting the amount which has already been paid to them. This may be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 8. With above observation and direction, the judgment and award stands modified and appeal is allowed.