RAFIQ, J.—Claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide its award dated 27.09.2003 in MAC Case No.2165/2000, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- to claimants for death of Raghuwar Dayal Gangwal in a road accident. 2. Learned counsel for appellants has raised twofold contentions. His first contention is that age of deceased has been accepted by learned Tribunal to be 55 years and therefore, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), it ought to have applied multiplier of 11 whereas multiplier of 9 has been applied, which is illegal. His second contention is that even though deceased at relevant point of time was 55 years of age, yet his income of Rs.2,500/- has wrongly been accepted without extending the claimants benefit of future prospects, and they would be entitled to benefit of future prospects. Deceased was running a flour mill and therefore his income should be accepted at-lest at minimal of Rs.3,000/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company opposed the appeal and submitted that as per evidence of appellants themselves, the flour mill is being now run by son of deceased and therefore it cannot be said that income from that flour mill is ceased. Learned counsel argued that at the time when accident took place, minimum wages for skilled labour was Rs.68/- per day and therefore by that standard the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- determined by the Tribunal cannot be said towards lower side. 4. On hearing learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for respondent insurance company and perusing the material on record, I am persuaded to accept the first argument of learned counsel for appellants. As per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, where deceased is in age block of 51-55 years, multiplier of 11 ought to have been applied. Here in present case age of deceased has been assessed to be 55 years by learned Tribunal and therefore in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, multiplier of 11 should have been applied by learned Tribunal instead of 9. Here in present case age of deceased has been assessed to be 55 years by learned Tribunal and therefore in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, multiplier of 11 should have been applied by learned Tribunal instead of 9. Learned Tribunal has rightly assessed income of deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom for his own expenses, determined the dependency at Rs.20,000/- per year. Calculating thus, the compensation would come to Rs.2,20,000/- (20000x11). Award of Rs.40,000/- on non-pecuniary heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and other expenses on transportation, medical, nutritious diet etc., is maintained. 5. Claimant-appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- (220000+40000) instead of Rs.2,20,000/-. The appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof. Appeal accordingly stands partly allowed.