JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 15588 CII of 2011 Learned counsel for the appellants contends that at the time of filing the claim petition, name of the husband of Kitabo-appellant No.6 was wrongly reflected in the award as Hari Ram. On filing the application for correction, the same was corrected by the learned Tribunal on 29.1.2011,which is clear from the certified copy. Thereafter, the appeal was filed on 5.4.2011. Heard. 2. The applicant-appellant are illiterate persons. The typographical mistake crept in the award is inadvertent, therefore, the delay is not deliberate and intentional. As such, the delay of 667 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Application stands disposed of. FAO No. 4182 of 2011 4. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellants, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, (for short ‘the Tribunal), vide Award dated 29.1.2011, on account of death of Sushil, in a road accident on intervening night of 3/4.2.2007. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the claimants are five in number, therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses should be to the extent of 1/4th instead of 1/3rd. He further states that no amount was awarded towards loss of consortium. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents state that one of the claimant is the father, who cannot be considered as dependent. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. Admittedly, the death of Sushil occurred in a road accident on the intervening night of 3/4.2.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of Ajit Singh, the driver of the offending truck. The claimants are the widow, two daughters, one son and the parents. Even if the father is excluded, there remains four claimants. In view of Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, there being five dependents, the dependency of 3/4th instead of 2/3rd ought to have been taken. Ordered accordingly. 9. The untimely death of Sushil was a great shock to his family. From the perusal of the award, it appears that no amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium to the wife. Ordered accordingly. 9. The untimely death of Sushil was a great shock to his family. From the perusal of the award, it appears that no amount has been awarded towards loss of consortium to the wife. Therefore, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met, if a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted to the appellant No.1- widow of the deceased as consortium. Ordered accordingly. 10. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,86,000/- (3000 (monthly income) x 3/4th (dependency) x 12 x 18 (multiplier). The enhanced amount i.e. Rs.54000/- (4,86,000- 4,32,000 (excluding the conventional heads) already awarded by the learned Tribunal), shall be paid to the appellants, in the manner enumerated in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, the appellants shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the appeal, till its realisation. Apart from this, a sum of Rs.10,000/- as consortium shall be also paid to appellant No.1- Shakuntla, widow of Sushil. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award is modified to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------