JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.10.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 36-N/2 of 2005, titled Naro Devi and others versus Shri Jeet singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,62,800/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Owner, insurer and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is inadequate. The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons. 5. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 15 to 25 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of “12” but has fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased 1/5th was to be deducted, in view of the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. It is apt to reproduce para 30 of Sarla Verma’s judgment herein:- “30.Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.” 6. Having said so, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2700/- per month instead of Rs.2200/- per month, as held by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2700x12x12= Rs.3,88,800/-. Having said so, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2700/- per month instead of Rs.2200/- per month, as held by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2700x12x12= Rs.3,88,800/-. 7. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount under the heads “loss of funeral expenses” and “loss of estate”. Thus, the claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under the aforesaid two heads. Besides above, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head “loss of Consortium” Rs.10,000/- under the head “conventional charges” and Rs.26,000/- under the head “Treatment Charges”, as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Viewed thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.3,88,800+Rs.20,000+Rs.46,000/- Total Rs.4,54800/-, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till is final realization. 9. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 10. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks from today in the Registry. 11. Registry is directed to release the amount, on deposit by the insurer, in favour of the claimants, strictly, as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 12. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.