RAFIQ, J.—Claimants have preferred this appeal dis-satisfied with quantum of compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Beawar, vide its award dated 26.9.2006 in MAC Case No.808/2005 (285/2005) in a death claim case. 2. Learned counsel for appellant has pressed only two grounds; one is that learned Tribunal has erred in assessing monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,000/- and further it erred in deducting 1/3rd from income of deceased for his own expenses. Looking to the length of service of deceased and nature of job which he was doing, learned Tribunal should have assessed his income towards higher side and keeping in view number of dependents, learned Tribunal should have deducted only 1/4th for own expenses of deceased. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company has oppo-sed the appeal and supported the award passed by learned Tribunal. 4. From driving licence (Exhibit-9) it is clear that deceased was permitted to drive transport vehicle and from material on available record also it is clear that deceased Puran Singh had been working as driver since 09.01.1996 to drive heavy motor vehicle. Accident took place on 26.03.2005. He had been the driver for last about ten years. No doubt, a new driver in the year 2005 might have been receiving salary at Rs.3,000/- per month, but it cannot be accepted that a driver having ten years experience of driving heavy motor vehicle, would have been receiving the same salary. The amount of Rs.3,000/- must be held to be salary for a new driver at relevant point of time. The deceased had been working as driver since long and he must have been held to have been receiving annual increments and at the time of his death his monthly salary, on the safer side, can be determined to be Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in accepting his monthly salary at Rs.3,000/-. Ends of justice would meet in case monthly salary of deceased is accepted at Rs.4,000/-. Ordered accordingly. 5. Therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in accepting his monthly salary at Rs.3,000/-. Ends of justice would meet in case monthly salary of deceased is accepted at Rs.4,000/-. Ordered accordingly. 5. Learned counsel for appellants has relied on 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), and argued that as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in that case, if dependents are more than four but upto six, the deduction should be of 1/4th for own expenses of deceased on analogy that deceased in that event would have spent more on the family rather than himself. In present case, deceased has six dependents and, as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, learned Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd for own expenses of deceased and keeping in view number of dependents it should have deducted 1/4th only for own expenses of deceased. 6. As discussed above, monthly salary of deceased is accepted at Rs.4,000/-. After deducting 1/4th for own expenses of deceased, monthly loss of dependency would come to Rs.3000/-. Learned Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 17, looking to age of deceased accepted by learned Tribunal in the age group of 30-35 years, as per second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act. Calculating thus, the compensation would come to Rs.6,12,000/- (3000x12x17). Award of Rs.7,000/- on non-pecuniary heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses, is maintained. 7. Claimant-appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs.6,19,000/- (612000+7000) instead of Rs.4,15,000/-. 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.