JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- This is an appeal brought by the dependents of Balwant Singh, who died in a vehicular accident that took place on 12.06.2008. Kuldip Kaur and others have brought claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Balwant Singh, which was allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 12.01.2011 awarding a sum of Rs.4,29,000/- as compensation. Since the appeal is for enhancement and no other question is involved in this appeal, it is not necessary to reproduce the facts of the case. It would be sufficient to say that Balwant Singh was claimed to be aged 40 years and he was working as Supervisor with Malwa Tent House, Khamanon and was getting Rs.7000/- per month as salary and the claimants are six in number consisting of his widow, three children and aged parents. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the certificate of salary of the deceased could not be proved on the record and the same remained as Mark P-3 yet there was no justification for learned Tribunal to take the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. According to him, even the multiplier applied in this case by learned Tribunal is also on lower side. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.5, on the other hand, has submitted that the failure of the claimants to prove the certificate of salary of the deceased would only result in rejection of the same. According to him, there was, thus, no evidence on the record to prove that the income of the deceased was more than Rs.3000/- per month. According to him, the amount assessed as compensation by learned Tribunal in this case is, therefore, adequate and proper. 4. There is nothing on the record showing as to where from learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. At the relevant time, the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer had been Rs.3200/- per month in Punjab. At least the amount of Rs.3200/- per month should have been taken as income of the deceased. 4. There is nothing on the record showing as to where from learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.3000/- per month. At the relevant time, the minimum wages for an unskilled labourer had been Rs.3200/- per month in Punjab. At least the amount of Rs.3200/- per month should have been taken as income of the deceased. The deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased has been rightly made to represent the personal expenses of the deceased on himself and, therefore, deducting Rs.800/- per month from Rs.3200/- and multiplying the remainder with 12, the annual dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.28,800/-. Multiplier of 15 has been adopted by learned Tribunal and this is the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009 AIR (SC) 3104. Multiplying the annual dependency with 15, the amount that comes as compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.4,32,000/-. Learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.15,000/- as compensation under other heads and as there is no dispute regarding the same between the parties, adding the same to the aforesaid amount, I find the claimants to be entitled to Rs.4,47,000/-. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find the claimants to be entitled to Rs.4,47,000/- in place of Rs.4,29,000/- assessed by learned Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the compensation assessed by learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,29,000/- to Rs.4,47,000/-, which shall be payable with interest and in the ratio as mentioned by learned Tribunal in its award. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————