JUDGMENT 1. - Claimants have preferred this appeal dissatisfied with quantum of compensation of Rs. 3,54,000/- in a death claim, awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur, vide its award dated 07.02.2007 in MAC Case No. 357/2006. Prayer is made for enhancement of awarded compensation. 2. First argument of learned counsel for appellants is that learned Tribunal has wrongly read Exhibit-13 and on that basis has taken monthly income of deceased at Rs. 2699/-, whereas this amount was only for 19 days and not for one month. Exhibit-13 is register of wages and at its Serial No.11 name of deceased Chand is shown. Ninth column of Exhibit-13 shows total number of days for which salary is payable and 19 days are shown against name of deceased Chand and net amount payable to deceased is shown to be Rs. 2699/- for 19 days and not for one month, whereas learned Tribunal has taken it to be wages for one month. Learned counsel argued that salary of deceased for one month was Rs. 4,000/-, which is proved from Exhibit-11, salary certificate dated 05.10.2005, issued by the Kapur Press, where deceased Chand was employed during relevant period and his last drawn salary is shown to be Rs. 4000/- and therefore, learned Tribunal, for the purpose of computation of compensation, should have accepted monthly salary of deceased at Rs. 4000/-. 3. Secondly, learned counsel for appellants argued that there are four dependents of deceased and, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) , learned Tribunal ought to have made ¼th deduction rather ⅓rd. In Sarla Verma, supra, the Supreme Court held that if number of dependents are four to six, deduction should be of ¼th for own expenses of deceased on analogy that deceased in that event would have spent more on the family rather than himself. 4. Thirdly, learned counsel for appellants argued that deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident and therefore, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 16, whereas learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of only 15, which is towards lower side. 5. Fourthly, learned counsel for appellants argued that, as stated above, if monthly income of deceased is accepted at Rs. 5. Fourthly, learned counsel for appellants argued that, as stated above, if monthly income of deceased is accepted at Rs. 4,000/-, it needs to be increased by 30% on account of future prospects in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1285 : 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC) . It is argued that in aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has held that 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 towards further prospects, 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. 6. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company has opposed the appeal and submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation and no interference is called for therein. He further argued that judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, and Santosh Devi, supra, cannot be applied in old cases as the award in present case was passed way back in the year 2005. 7. On considering rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perusing material on record, I am satisfied that learned Tribunal has wrongly taken monthly income of deceased at Rs. 2699/- (rounded off to Rs. 2700/-), whereas from Exhibit-13 it is clear that said amount was only for the period of 19 days and not for one month. His monthly income, as is evident from Exhibit-11, was Rs. 4,000/-. Therefore, monthly income of deceased is taken at Rs. 4,000/-, which, in the facts and circumstances of present case, needs to be increased by 25% on account of future prospects in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Santosh Devi, supra. After adding 25% thereto, monthly income of deceased comes to Rs. 5000/- (4000+1000). Deceased had four dependents and as per ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, learned Tribunal has erred in deducting ⅓rd for his own expenses and keeping in view number of dependents it should have deducted ¼th. In view of this, his monthly contribution to family comes to Rs. 3750/- (5000-1250). 5000/- (4000+1000). Deceased had four dependents and as per ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, learned Tribunal has erred in deducting ⅓rd for his own expenses and keeping in view number of dependents it should have deducted ¼th. In view of this, his monthly contribution to family comes to Rs. 3750/- (5000-1250). Keeping in view age of deceased to be 34 years at the time of accident, learned Tribunal, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, supra, ought to have applied multiplier of 16 instead of 15, therefore, multiplier of 16 is applied for calculating compensation. 8. Calculating thus, compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs. 7,20,000/- (3750x12x16). Award of Rs. 30,000/- on non-pecuniary heads is maintained, which includes Rs. 25,000/- cumulatively awarded for deprivation of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of future care and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. 9. Claimant-appellants are thus entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- ( Rs. 720000 + Rs. 30000) instead of Rs. 3,54,000/-. The appellants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation from date of filing of claim petition till actual payment thereof.Appeal accordingly stands partly allowed.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******