Anita Chaudhry, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants on the quantum of compensation contending that the assessment of compensation had wrongly been made on various counts particularly that the deceased was 47 years of age at the time of accident but his age had been taken to be 55 years by the Tribunal and secondly his income was not properly assessed by the Tribunal. Maman - deceased was working as Munshi/Clerk with a contractor. His age was indicated as 55 years in the claim petition. It was claimed that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Maman died in an accident, which took place on 22.05.2008. Maman was sitting on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-06M-6599 and was talking to Rajesh Kumar when Tarun Kumar came on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-10J-0529 from Murthal side and struck the motorcycle into the stationary motorcycle. Maman fell down and suffered injuries on his forehead and legs. Maman's injuries led to his death. 2. The claim petition was contested by the respondents, who raised pleas which were turned down. 3. The contention raised is that the deceased was 47 years old but it was admitted that in the postmortem report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 55 years. I find that in the claim petition itself the age of the deceased was shown as 55 years and no evidence was produced on that aspect, therefore, this argument has to be outrightly rejected. 4. The next contention is regarding the multiplier. The multiplier of 11 has to be applied when the age of the deceased is between 51 to 55 years, which was properly applied in terms of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SC. 5. The next contention raised was that the minimum wages had been shown to be Rs. 3,600/- but the accident had taken place in May 2008 and the minimum wages were higher and there were evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and therefore, the amount awarded was modest. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants had referred to the statement given by the witnesses. The record reveals that Jaipal - PW-2 had proved the certificate Ex. P1 but he had not brought any record of attendance register or appointment or the wages register in support of his statement. The Tribunal had rightly doubted his statement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants had referred to the statement given by the witnesses. The record reveals that Jaipal - PW-2 had proved the certificate Ex. P1 but he had not brought any record of attendance register or appointment or the wages register in support of his statement. The Tribunal had rightly doubted his statement. There is no error as regards the salary calculated by the Tribunal as it was on the basis of minimum wages being paid in that particular year. 7. The Court had awarded a modest sum of Rs. 5,000/- as funeral expenses for which I would add a sum of Rs. 5,000/- more. No amount was awarded for loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had recently in the case of Rajesh Kumar and others v. Rajbir Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3860 of 2013 had held that there was a need for providing a higher sum towards consortium and for funeral expenses, therefore, Rs. 1 lac is awarded towards consortium, making the total increase of Rs. 1,05,000/-. The over all compensation determined accords with the consideration brought before the Tribunal. This amount would be paid by the Insurance Company with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of payment. In the manner of apportionment it will be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The award stands modified. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. ___