BHAGWATI, J.—Dissatisfied with the amount of Rs.2,53,000/-, decreed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (here-in-after to be referred in short as the 'Tribunal'), in favour of the appellants-claimants, the appellants have beseeched by way of the instant appeal to enhance the quantum of compensation only on one ground that despite there being five dependent family members, the learned Tribunal reduced only 1/3 amount from the deceased's income towards his personal and living expenses. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 3. Background facts of the case, succinctly stated are that on 28th September, 2006, at about 7:30 pm, the deceased Rudi Devi was going on foot to the way side of road for daily work. No sooner did she reach in front of the school, one motor-cycle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-SM-7737, being driven by its rider rashly and negligently, suddenly emerged and hit her, as a result of which she fell on the ground and became unconscious and later on she died on the way to Hospital. The claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after completion of the trial of the claim petition decreed an amount of Rs. 2,53,000/- as indicated here-in-above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has concentrated his arguments only on one ground that the Tribunal ought to have reduced 1/4 from the income of the deceased in consideration to expenses incurred to maintain herself had she been alive with a view to reckon the loss of dependency. Learned counsel took me through the verdict of Apex Court delivered in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8648 of 2007 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC)) and contended that the Apex Court having discussed the cases of Trilok Chandra = RLW 1996(2) SC 130, Fakeerappa and others, observed that where the deceased was married, the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3 where the number of dependent family members is 2-3, it should be 1/4, where the dependent family members is 4-6 and 1/5 where the number of dependent family members exceed six. In the instant case, the number of dependent family members is 5, hence, 1/4 amount ought to have been reduced from the income of the deceased to reckon the loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal instead of 1/4 amount deducted 1/3 amount from the income of the deceased, hence, the amount towards loss of dependency needs to be enhanced and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent do not object to this legal proposition, as it is based on the judgment of the Apex Court. 6. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the Tribunal considered Rs. 73/- to be the income of the deceased on the basis of Minimum Wages Act prevailing at the relevant point of time, hence, considering Rs. 25,000/- to be the annual income of the deceased, the loss of dependency in the light of the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) is computed thus:- Rs.25,000 – Rs.6,250/- (1/4 of the annual income of the deceased) = Rs.18,750/- Rs.18,750/- x 13 = Rs. 2,43,750/- 7. Hence, the loss of dependency in the instant appeal is found to be Rs. 2,43,750/- instead of Rs. 2,21,000/-. 8. The Tribunal is found to have awarded money on other heads also, but I do not find any reason to interfere with them. 9. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants-appellants are held entitled to claim Rs. 2,75,750/- instead of Rs. 2,53,000/- from the respondents, jointly and severally. The appellants are also held entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the amount is actually realized. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 10. The impugned award stands modified as indicated here-in-above. 11. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.