JUDGMENT : Rekha Mittal, J. By way of this order, I shall dispose of aforesaid appeals as these have emerged out of common award dated 17.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby compensation has been awarded in regard to death of Dheeraj in a motor vehicular accident. Two separate petitions, one preferred by widow of deceased Dheeraj and other filed by his parents were decided together along with various other petitions arising out of the same occurrence. 2. FAO-753-2012 and 1807-2012 have been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction in compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. However, FAO-3221-2013 has been filed by Smt. Rachna, widow of the deceased for enhancement of compensation. 3. The learned Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month, allowed deduction of 1/3rd qua personal expenses of the deceased and allowed multiplier of 18, computing loss of dependancy at Rs. 5,76,000/-. The claimants are also allowed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of love and affection by the parents, Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral charges and transportation of the dead body, making a total sum of Rs. 6,26,000/-. 4. Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal erroneously assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month when otherwise Anil Kumar brother of the deceased admitted during cross-examination that the deceased was drawing salary @ Rs. 3000/- per month. Another submission made by counsel is that as widow of the deceased has performed marriage with her brother-in-law, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased was required to the extent of 50%. 5. Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, contends that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation by giving benefit of increase in income for future prospects in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . It is further argued that no compensation has been awarded to the widow for loss of consortium. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Anil (PW9), one of the brothers of the deceased appeared in the witness box and deposed that deceased was getting Rs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 . It is further argued that no compensation has been awarded to the widow for loss of consortium. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Anil (PW9), one of the brothers of the deceased appeared in the witness box and deposed that deceased was getting Rs. 4000/- per month while working as an electrician with Pranav Vikas (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is further deposed that he was holder of diploma in IIF Vocational ITI Sector 16, Faridabad. No doubt, Anil Kumar in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 3000/- per month but there is no challenge to his statement that the deceased was holder of diploma in IIF Vocational and was working as an Electrician. In the State of Haryana in the year 2008, the minimum wage for a skilled labourer was fixed more than Rs. 4000/- per month. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month. 8. The plea of the Insurance Company in regard to deduction from the income of the deceased is misconceived and liable to be rejected. The deceased at the time of his death left behind his widow and parents who are held to be dependent upon his earnings. Keeping in view the number of dependents upon the deceased at the time of death, the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed deduction to the extent of 1/3rd. 9. Counsel for the claimants is right in his submission that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for increase in income towards future prospects. Keeping in view age of the deceased being less than 40 years, 50% increase in his income is to be allowed towards future prospects. The total amount of compensation with regard to loss of dependancy comes to Rs. 8,64,000/- (5,76,000 + 2,88,000). 10. Rachna, widow of the deceased has not been awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium. There is no denial that Rachna has performed marriage with her brother-in-law after unfortunate demise of her husband at a young age of 22 years. However, the sudden death of Dheeraj, husband of Rachna would have resulted in a great set back to her. In view of the circumstances of the case, she is awarded compensation of Rs. There is no denial that Rachna has performed marriage with her brother-in-law after unfortunate demise of her husband at a young age of 22 years. However, the sudden death of Dheeraj, husband of Rachna would have resulted in a great set back to her. In view of the circumstances of the case, she is awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium. The claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards expenses on funeral and last rites of the deceased. The total amount of compensation payable to the claimants is calculated at Rs. 9,14,000/- (8,64,000 + 25,000 +25,000) and enhanced amount of compensation is Rs. 3,28,000/- (9,14,000-5,86,000). 11. The enhanced amount shall any interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. However, in case respondent No. 3 deposits the amount in the Tribunal within a period of 45 days, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable to the widow and parents of the deceased to the extent of 1/3rd share each.