JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Claimants in MVC No. 73 of 2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhalki, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, by the judgment and award dated 3-6-2011, have presented this appeal. The widow, minor son and parents of one Ravi Kumar Mehtre filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation due to the death of Ravikumar, aged 35 years, in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 27-4-2009 at about 2.30 p.m. on Latur-Bidar Road, while travelling as an occupant in the car bearing Certificate of Registration No. KA-39/M/1022, driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent-insured by the second respondent-Insurer. Claimants asserted that the deceased was a Doctor, carrying on medical profession on obtaining a Degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences (BAMS) having a lucrative practice earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. The insured and the insurer arraigned as respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim petition by filing statement of objections denying the assertions. 2. The MACT, in the premise of pleadings of parties, framed issues, the first of which related to actionable negligence attributed to the first respondent-driver/owner while the second over the quantum of compensation. The first claimant was examined as P.W. 1 while three other witnesses as P.Ws. 2 to 4 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 2. For the respondents, none entered the witness-box nor produced documents. The MACT, regard being had to the material on record and the evidence, both oral and documentary, answered the first issue in the affirmative and reckoning Rs. 7,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, deducted l/3rd towards his personal expenses and applied multiplier 16, to award Rs. 8,83,200/- towards loss of dependency, to which was added Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection; loss of consortium; loss to estate and; transportation and funeral expenses; totaling to Rs. 9,23,200/- with interest at 6% per annum, while also directing apportionment of compensation as between the claimants, by the judgment and award impugned. 3. Since the appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation, it is not necessary to consider the finding on the issue over actionable negligence. 4. 9,23,200/- with interest at 6% per annum, while also directing apportionment of compensation as between the claimants, by the judgment and award impugned. 3. Since the appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation, it is not necessary to consider the finding on the issue over actionable negligence. 4. It is no doubt, true as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 spoke to the fact that the deceased was practicing Medicine. However, in the absence of records relating to practice and income generated therefrom, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, cannot be countenanced. The Trial Court, in our considered opinion, justifiably reckoned Rs. 7,000/- per month as the income of the deceased at the time of the accident and death. 5. There is, however, force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that, the MACT, was not justified in deducting 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses since all the four claimants are dependents and therefore, MACT, was required to deduct 1/4th of the monthly income as observed by the Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . If 1/4th of Rs. 7,000/- is deducted, the monthly loss of dependency is Rs. 5,250/- and applying multiplier 16, the annual loss of dependency is Rs. 10,08,000/- as against Rs. 8,83,200/- awarded by the MACT. 6. We find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the widow, aged 23 years has lost her husband at a very young age while the son, aged 15 years, a minor, too, has lost his father at a very young age. The parents also have had to suffer the death of their only son. In these circumstances, we think it appropriate to award Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium for the first claimant-widow; Rs. 30,000/- at Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection for each of the other claimants in place of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the MACT. 7. We find no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded towards loss to estate and transportation and funeral expenses. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellants-claimants are entitled to the following compensation: In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Additional MACT, Bhalki, remains unaltered.