RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal by award dated 16.02.2009. 2. Shri Ram Sharan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants has made three fold arguments. His first submission is that in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation-(2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), the dependents being six, 1/4th deduction should have been made for the own expenses of the deceased from the monthly income and not 1/3rd which is, what has been done by the Tribunal. The second contention is that deceased was a driver of heavy motor vehicle and his licence was produced in evidence as Ex.16 and therefore to accept that at the age of 40, he would be earning only Rs.3,000 per month is not a reasonable view. The claimants had pleaded and the evidence was also adduced by the claimant widow about the fact that his monthly income was Rs.10,000 per month. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.24489 of 2010, decided on 23.04.2012 wherein the Supreme Court has held that even for the employees in unorganised sector, the benefit of future prospects may be granted at least to the extent of 30% of the income. 3. Shri Rajpal Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that even if the judgRment of Sarla Verma, supra is applied, the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal at the age of 40 years, would get reduced to 15. It is contended that future prospects ought not to be allowed to a driver whose permanent employment was not established and nor it was adduced in evidence that where and with whom he was working as driver. He further submits that claimant-appellant no.6 Desh Raj, brother of the deceased, aged 25 years, cannot be taken as dependent on him. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. He further submits that claimant-appellant no.6 Desh Raj, brother of the deceased, aged 25 years, cannot be taken as dependent on him. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. In my view, if the claimant no.6, Desh Raj, brother of deceased is ignored, there remains only 5 claimants/dependents and nevertheless the deduction of 1/4th would be admissible as per the ratio of judgement of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra. However, at the same, the multiplier of 15 and not 16 would be applicable as per aforesaid judgement. Considering the fact that deceased was working as a driver and his driving licence has been produced to show that he was permitted to drive heavy motor vehicle and also keeping in view the ratio of judgement of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi on the point of future prospects, the income of the deceased deserves to be marginally increased and therefore it is accepted at Rs.4,000 per month rather than Rs.3,000 per month. On that basis the amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,40,000 (Rs.4,000 – 1/4th = Rs.3000 x 12 x 15). The amount of Rs.2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.5,000 to each of the claimants for loss of love and affection is maintained. However, the appellant no.1- widow of deceased is additional awarded a sum of Rs.10,000 for loss of consortium. The amount of compensation is thus enhanced from Rs.4,16,000 to Rs.5,82,000 (5,40,000 + 2,000 + 30,000 + 10,000). The appellant is also entitled to interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.