JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 25.09.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxiliary), Dhrangadhra in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 98 of 2004 so far as the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,72,000/- as compensation with interest and costs. 2. It is the case of the appellant that on the date of incident while he along with one Gauriben were travelling in a toyota car no. GJ-13-F-1557 from Surendranagar to Dhrangadhra and when they reached Meladi Mataji temple, original opponent no. 1 drove the car in a rash and negligent manner in excessive speed and lost control of the same. As a result, the car turned turtle and the deceased as well as Gauriben sustained serious injuries and deceased succumbed to the same. The appellants being legal heirs of the deceased therefore filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 3. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased's income is only Rs.3000/- per month. He submitted that having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr., Reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the Tribunal has wrongly considered the datum figure as only Rs.2000/- per month while assessing the dependency loss. Mr. Shah further submitted that the trial court on a true construction of the policy documents at Ex. 23 and 47 ought to have directed respondent no. 3 - Insurance Company to pay the entire awarded amount to the present appellants. 4. Mr. S.S. Gade, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 supported the impugned award and submitted that the amount of compensation is just and proper. He submitted that the multiplier is just and proper and therefore no interference is called for. 5. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the issues with regard to income and deduction by way of personal expenses are already settled by the decisions of Apex Court. In the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors., reported in 1996 AIR 1274 : 1996 SCC (3) 179 it is held as under: "... In the case of Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors., reported in 1996 AIR 1274 : 1996 SCC (3) 179 it is held as under: "... Adopting the same scientific yardstick as laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the computation of compensation in the present case can almost be subjected to a well settled mathematical formula. Deceased in the present case, as seen above, was earning gross salary of Rs.1,543/- per month. Rounding it upto figure of Rs.1,500/- and keeping in view all the future prospects which the deceased had in stable military service in the light of his brilliant academic record and performance in the military service spread over 7 years, and also keeping in view the other imponderables like accidental death while discharging military duties and the hazards of military service, it will not be unreasonable to predicate that his gross monthly income would have shot up to at least double than what he was earning at the time of his death, i.e. upto Rs.3,000/- per month had he survived in life and had successfully completed his future military career till the time of superannuation. The average future monthly income could be arrived at by adding the actual gross income at the time of death, namely, Rs.1,500/- per month to the maximum which he would have otherwise got had he not died a premature death, i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month and dividing that figure by two. Thus the average gross monthly income spread over his entire future career, had it been available, would work out to Rs.4,500/- divided by 2, i.e. Rs.2,200/-. Rs.2,200/- per month would have been the gross monthly average income available to the family for the deceased had he survived as a bread winner...." 5.1 In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr., Reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 it is held as under: "Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parents/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a Dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be Dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a Dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and Dependant on the income of the deceased, as in the case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." 5.2 In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. Nothing is pointed out to take a different figure in that regard. In view of the decision in Sarla Dixit, AIR 1996 SC 1274 (supra), by doubling the income, the amount would come to Rs.6000/- and by adding current income of Rs.3000/- it would come to Rs.9000/-. Average monthly income can be derived by dividing the same by 2. Therefore the average income would come to Rs.4500/- per month. 5.3 In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma, AIR 2009 SC 3104 (supra), deducting ?rd from the total income for personal expenses, the amount dependency loss per month shall come to Rs.3000/-. The multiplier of 15 adopted in the present case is just and proper and accordingly the future dependency loss shall come to Rs.5,40,000/-. Rs.3000/- is required to be paid towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- is required to be paid towards loss of love and affection which have not been awarded by the trial court. The multiplier of 15 adopted in the present case is just and proper and accordingly the future dependency loss shall come to Rs.5,40,000/-. Rs.3000/- is required to be paid towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- is required to be paid towards loss of love and affection which have not been awarded by the trial court. The trial court has rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of estate and consortium. Therefore total amount of compensation shall come to Rs.5,63,000. Against this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,72,000/- which is on lower side. Therefore an additional amount of Rs.1,91,000/- is required to be awarded. 6. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.1,91,000/- alongwith interest at 7.5% from the date of application till realisation. It is clarified that the respondents shall deposit the said amount within a period of eight weeks from today failing which 9% rate of interest shall be applicable on the awarded amount. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.