JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 8th August, 2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.45-S/2 of 2006/05, titled Anita Devi and others v. Shishu Pal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants (appellants herein) and the insurer was directed to satisfy the same, with right of recovery from the owner and the driver, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The claimants have filed the present appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and the Tribunal has fallen in error in assessing the income of the deceased and loss of dependency to the claimants. 3. The claimants, in the Claim Petition, have specifically averred that the deceased, namely, Srikant, was the sole bread earner, was mason by profession and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month and was of 24 years of age at the time of accident. It was submitted that the Tribunal has fallen in error in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and holding that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses. 4. Now a days, even a labourer earns Rs.300/- per day and may be not less than Rs.150/- per day in the year 2004, when the accident took place. The claimants have led evidence and proved that the deceased was mason by profession, which fact is not in dispute. However, by guess work, I hold that the deceased would have been earning Rs.4,500/- per month, even if he is taken as labourer. Thus, it can safely be held that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of accident. 5. In terms of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, th has to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting ?rd from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, th income is deducted and it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency at least to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. 6. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 15). 7. The Tribunal has saddled the insurer with the liability, with a right of recovery, on the ground that the owner has committed breach. The owner had questioned the impugned award to that effect in terms of FAO No.627 of 2008, came to be dismissed vide order dated 7th May, 2001, has attained finality. 8. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is enhanced. The enhanced amount shall be payable to the minors only, namely, Master Sunny and Master Manni, in equal shares. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, if not already deposited, within a period of six weeks from today, with right of recovery, as granted by the Tribunal. The amount, on deposit, be disbursed/deposited strictly in terms of the impugned award. 9. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of accordingly.