BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 22nd December, 2005 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, decreed an amount of Rs. 3,76,400/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents to be paid jointly and severally. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellants have beseeched to enhance the quantum of compensation. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned award, it is noticed that the accident in this case took place on 6th May, 2000 between two vehicles, one Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-26P-0400 and Truck bearing registration No.RJ-14G-2083 wherein Suresh Kumar expired. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has concentrated her arguments only on two grounds. Firstly, the multiplier of 17 has been applied, whereas the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18. Secondly, the Tribunal considered only Rs.2400/- to be the monthly income of the deceased for reckoning the loss of dependency whereas he was earning more than that. Similarly, the Tribunal considered only three dependent family members and wrongly computed the loss of dependency, whereas the claim petition was filed by four dependent family members and all these four claimants were the dependents of deceased-Suresh Kumar. Hence, in view of the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transportation Corporation & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008 decided on 15th April, 2009 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)), the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one fourth (1/4th) and, thus, the quantum of compensation needs to be enhanced and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. E-converso, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of 17 as suggested by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (Supra), but so far as the number of dependents of family members is concerned, the Tribunal has categorically observed that father of the deceased was not dependent on him and it was the reason that the Tribunal considered only the wife of the deceased and two children to be the dependents. If the number of the dependents is three, then according to the guideline of the Apex Court as drawn in the Smt. Sarla Verma's case (supra) 1/3rd amount is required to be reduced from the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal having considered all these aspects rightly computed the amount of compensation which cannot be said to be exiguous or abysmally low in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned judgment is found to be just and apposite and suffers from no infirmity. I do not find any reason to enhance the quantum of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants has utterly failed to convince me to take a view contrary to that of the view taken by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any substance, deserves to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.