RAFIQ, J.—These three appeals have been filed assailing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur dated 5/5/2009 for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,62,000/- awarded in SBCMA No.3679/09 for the death of Smt.Malli Devi aged 25 years, Rs.56,000/- awarded in SBCMA No.3678/09 for the injuries sustained by Smt.Santi-the appellant aged 40 years at the relevant time and Rs.4,21,000/- awarded in SBCMA No.3680/09 for the death of Kabool aged 30 years husband of appellant No.1-Smt.Bhanwari Devi in a road accident involving the vehicle insured with respondent No.3-The Oriental Insurance company Ltd. Hence, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in SBCMA No.3679/2009 is that deceased-Smt.Malli Devi was a woman aged 25 years. Learned Tribunal erred in law in accepting her income to be on notional basis at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Even if she was a house hold woman, her contribution to the family should atleast be accepted at Rs.3,000/- per month as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal and another vs. National Insurance Company & Ors. : JT 2010 (7) SC 304 : 2010 ACJ 2161 = 2010(2) CCR 1351 (SC). She was an agriculturist and was running a embroidery shop in Kotputli. Her income should be accepted at Rs.3000/- per month while computing loss of dependency. Deceased at the relevant time was 25 years of age and the Tribunal has accepted her age between 20-25 years and therefore as per the judgment of the 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), multiplier of 18 would be applicable instead of 17. There being four dependents, 1/4th would be deducted. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has opposed the appeal but could not dispute that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the basis of notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum accepting the age of the deceased between 20-25 years, which is towards the lower side. 4. Considering therefore aforesaid argument, S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.3679/2009 (Rajendra @ Lala Ram & Ors. vs. Daya Ram & Ors.) deserve to succeed and same is accordingly allowed in part. Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, Jaipur dated 5/5/2009 is modified to the following extent:- (a) Rs.3000/- p.m. accepted income. 4. Considering therefore aforesaid argument, S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.3679/2009 (Rajendra @ Lala Ram & Ors. vs. Daya Ram & Ors.) deserve to succeed and same is accordingly allowed in part. Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, Jaipur dated 5/5/2009 is modified to the following extent:- (a) Rs.3000/- p.m. accepted income. (b) Rs.2250/- (1/4th deduction) 3000-750 (c) 2250x12x18 = Rs.4,86,000/-. (d) Award of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each to four claimants) for loss of love and affection total Rs.22,000/- towards other non-pecuniary heads is maintained. (e) Rs.4,86,000/- + Rs.22,000/- = Rs.5,08,000/-. (f) The original award of Rs.2,62,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,08,000/-. (g) The claimant-appellants shall be entitled to interest @7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,46,000/- from the date of filing claim petition. 5. In SBCMA No.3678/2009, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant-Smt.Santi sustained fracture in both of her hip bones and disablement of total body, which was assessed by the medical board at 14.77%. Age of the appellant was 40 years but the Tribunal has accepted her age between 40-45 years and applied the multiplier of 15. Learned counsel submitted that computation of loss of earning capacity is made on the basis of notional income to be at Rs.15,000/- p.a., whereas, as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal supra, Supreme Court assessed the income of the deceased-wife to Rs.5,000/- per month. Similarly, for the age group of persons between 41-45 years, multiplier of 14 should be applied as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. Only a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering. Therefore while maintaining the other award on non-pecuniary heads, compensation for loss of earning capacity, income and also on the head of pain and suffering deserves to suitably enhance. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has opposed the appeal but could not dispute that the when the age of the appellant is accepted between 40-45 years, why the multiplier of 14 was not applied as per the judment of Sarla Verma supra instead of 15, which has been done by the Tribunal. 7. Considering therefore aforesaid argument, S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.3678/2009 (Smt.Santi vs. Daya Ram & Ors.) deserve to succeed and same is accordingly allowed in part. 7. Considering therefore aforesaid argument, S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.3678/2009 (Smt.Santi vs. Daya Ram & Ors.) deserve to succeed and same is accordingly allowed in part. Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, Jaipur dated 5/5/2009 is modified to the following extent:- (a) Rs.3000/- p.m. accepted income. (b) 3000x15% = Rs.450/- (c) 450x12x14=75,600. (d) Award of Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Rs.21,000/- awarded for medical expenses is maintained. (e) 75,600+15,000+21,000= 1,11,600. (f) The original award of Rs.56,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,11,600/-. (g) The claimant-appellants shall be entitled to interest @7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.55,600/- from the date of filing claim petition. 8. In SBCMA No.3680/2009, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that deceased-Kabool husband of appellant Smt.Bhanari Devi was 30 years of age at the time of accident. Even though his income was accepted at Rs.3,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal has erred in law while deducting 1/3rd whereas keeping in view the fact that there were seven dependants of the deceased, 1/5th deductions should have been made as per the judgment of Sarla Verma supra. His age has been accepted between 35-40 years and multiplier of 16 has been rightly applied for the age group of persons between 31-35 years, as per the aforesaid judgment of Sarla Verma supra. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has opposed the appeal and argued that even if the judgment of Sarla Verma supra is applied, multiplier of 15 should be applied rather than 16 for the age group of persons between 36-40 years. Therefore, no interference is called for. The award is just and reasonable. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that 1/5th deductions should have been made rather than 1/3rd looking to the number of dependents being seven applying the multiplier of 16. 11. Considering therefore aforesaid argument, S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.3680/2009 (Smt.Bhanwari Devi & Ors. vs. Daya Ram & Ors.) deserve to succeed and same is accordingly allowed in part. Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, Jaipur dated 5/5/2009 is modified to the following extent:- (a) Rs.3000/- p.m. accepted income. (b) Rs.2400/- (1/5th deduction) 3000-600 (c) 2400x12x16 = Rs.4,60,800/-. (d) Award of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.35,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each to seven claimants) for loss of love and affection total Rs.37,000/- towards other non-pecuniary heads is maintained. Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, Jaipur dated 5/5/2009 is modified to the following extent:- (a) Rs.3000/- p.m. accepted income. (b) Rs.2400/- (1/5th deduction) 3000-600 (c) 2400x12x16 = Rs.4,60,800/-. (d) Award of Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.35,000/- (Rs.5,000/- each to seven claimants) for loss of love and affection total Rs.37,000/- towards other non-pecuniary heads is maintained. (e) Rs.4,60,800/- + Rs.37,000/- = Rs.4,97,800/-. (f) The original award of Rs.4,21,000/- is enhanced to Rs.4,97,800/-. (g) The claimant-appellants shall be entitled to interest @7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.76,800/- from the date of filing claim petition.