JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sood, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. The deceased was the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second and third respondents. The claimants approached the learned Tribunal on the pleadings that Shri Naresh Kumar had died in an accident involving the ill fated vehicle, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the first respondent before the learned Tribunal Shri Desh Raj and in this eventuality they are entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,00,000/- as pleaded. 2. The point urged before me is that the learned Tribunal was in grave error while awarding a sum of Rs. 31,70,000/- to the dependants of the deceased, who was running a shop selling cloth and general merchandise at Baldwara Bazaar and used to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month from his business and Rs. 5,000/- per month from agricultural work. The total income was claimed to be Rs. 30,000/- per month. The claim regarding agricultural income was rejected as not proved. 3. In order to arrive at the income earned by the deceased, the learned Tribunal relied upon the bank statements of the deceased, proved in evidence as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. The first statement was of cash credit limit (Ex. PW2/A) showing that he was having considerable amount of business turnover where he had deposited a sum of Rs. 14,06,800/- from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 and Rs. 13,57,900/- from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. The learned Tribunal then holds that an amount of Rs. 1,17,233/- was deposited on an average per month by the deceased in this account. The learned Tribunal then considers the statement of the saving bank account of the deceased, Ex. PW2/B and concluded that an amount of Rs. 10,26,679/- was deposited from 6.8.2005 till 31.3.2010. When averaged, an amount of Rs. 18,666/- per month was deposited by the deceased in his saving bank account, over a period of 55 months. Taking this as the base, learned Tribunal holds that this would prove that the income of the deceased was at least 25,000/- per month. Relying upon Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 1 6 SCC 121, an amount of Rs. Taking this as the base, learned Tribunal holds that this would prove that the income of the deceased was at least 25,000/- per month. Relying upon Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 1 6 SCC 121, an amount of Rs. 6,250/- was deducted by the learned Tribunal towards his personal expenses and base figure of Rs. 18,750/- per month and annual dependency of Rs. 2,25,000/- was calculated. Since the age of the deceased was 42 years, the multiplier of 14 was applied and total compensation of Rs. 31,50,000/- was granted and in addition to this an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards benefit of estate and Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses were also granted. 4. An objection was raised that this exceeded the amount claimed by the claimants but the learned Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh, 2003 (2) SCC 274 holding that the law did not prohibit such an award. 5. It has been urged before me that the amount awarded is excessive and that fixing the income of the deceased Rs. 25,000/- per month is excessive and speculative. Learned Counsel also submits that the deposit made in the cash credit limit could not constitute as a base for calculating the income. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the record. 7. In Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2012)6 SCC 421 , the Court holds; 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of para 24 of Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation. 8. In this view of the matter, the income of the deceased is to be increased by 30%. 8. In this view of the matter, the income of the deceased is to be increased by 30%. On the question that the learned Tribunal determined the income of the deceased Rs. 18,666/- per month as that was being deposited in saving bank account, there can be no dispute as this figure stands proved in evidence from the saving bank statements of accounts of the deceased. The deposit in the cash credit limit account only proves the quantum of business generated and not the basis of the income calculated. Taking this as a datum figure, it has to be increased by 30% as held in Santosh Devi's case (supra), which works out to Rs. 5,599/-. The total income calculated would be Rs. 18,666 + Rs. 5,599/- = Rs. 24,665/- or say Rs. 25,000/- (when rounded off). Out of this amount 1/4th i.e. a sum of Rs. 6,250/- being the amount spent by the deceased on personal expenses has to be deducted. Monthly income of the deceased would thus works out to Rs. 18,750/-. Since the deceased was aged about 42 years, the multiplier of 14 is to be applied. The total amount then would be worked out to be Rs. 18,750/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 31,50,000/-. I hold accordingly. This amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition and till its deposit or payment. The penal clause directing the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be deleted from the order of the learned Tribunal. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of.