RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellants seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- that was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar vide award dated 19/9/1998 in regard to the death of Smt.Kalavati wife of appellant No.1 Sukhram and mother of appellants No.2 to 7 in a road accident, which took place on 16/9/1995 involving the vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in assailing the quantum of compensation is that learned Tribunal erred in law while deducting 1/3rd towards the own expenses of the deceased, whereas deductions of 1/5th should have been made in view of number of dependents being seven as per the judgment of 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). Learned Tribunal has also not awarded anything under the head of ‘future prospects’ in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors. : Civil Appeal No.3723 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 24489 of 2010) decided vide order dated 23/4/2012. Learned Tribunal also erred in law while adopting the lower multiplier of 15 instead of 17, which is applicable at the age of 30 years, as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. Learned Tribunal has also erred in while accepting the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month, whereas she was earning Rs.2500/- per month from the work of stitching of clothes at home. Enhancement has also been prayed for loss of clothes. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal but could not rebut the ratio of judgments of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Santosh Devi supra being applicable in the facts of the present case. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that at the time of accident, the appellant was 30 years of age and as per the judgment of Supreme Court, the multiplier of 17 instead of 15 should have been adopted. Similarly, number of dependents are seven and 1/5th should have been deducted towards the own expenses of the deceased, whereas the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd, which is contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in Salra Verma supra. Similarly, number of dependents are seven and 1/5th should have been deducted towards the own expenses of the deceased, whereas the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd, which is contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in Salra Verma supra. Learned Tribunal has also less accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.1500/- per month, which should be atleast Rs.2,000/- per month. Supreme Court in Smt.Santosh Devi supra while deviating from the judgment of Sarla Verma supra in para 14 thereof, observed, as under:- “We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma’s case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma’s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” 5. Therefore, appellants are entitled for the benefit of ‘future prospects’ to the extent of 30% of the accepted income of the deceased of Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, appellants are entitled for the benefit of ‘future prospects’ to the extent of 30% of the accepted income of the deceased of Rs.2,000/- per month. However, prayer of the appellants for enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of clothes’ cannot be accepted because value of rupee in 1995 was such, which the Tribunal has awarded, which is sufficient amount of compensation for loss of clothes. 6. The appeal is thus allowed in part. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar dated 19/9/1998 is liable to be modified in the following terms:- (a) Rs.2,000/- per month accepted income. (b) 30% of Rs.2,000/- is Rs.600/- (c) 2000+600=2600. (d) 1/5th of Rs.2,600/- is Rs.520/- (e) 2600-520=2080. (f) 2080x12x17=4,24,320. (g) Rs.6,000/- awarded for loss of clothes is maintained. (h) Rs.14,000/- (Rs.2,000/- awarded to each claimants) for ‘loss of consortium’ to appellant No.1 and ‘loss of love and affection’ to appellants No.2 to 7 is maintained. (i) 4,24,320+6,000+14,000=4,44,320. (j) The original amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs.4,44,320/-. (k) The appellants are entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,44,320/- @6% p.a.