JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 28.02.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan in Claim Petition No. 9-S/2 of 2006, titled Smt. Tara Kaundal and others versus Sh. Krishan Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants/ appellants herein and insurer came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The insurer, driver and owner have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. The claimants/appellants have questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or otherwise. 3. It is necessary to give brief resume of the relevant facts. 4. The claimants being the victim of vehicular accident filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the ground that they have lost source of dependency because of death of Ajay Kaundal in a road accident, which was caused by respondent No.2 Nand Lal, while driving truck bearing registration No.HP62-0465, rashly and negligently. The claimants have specifically averred that deceased was 26 years of age and earning Rs.5500/- per month as labourer. The claimants have led evidence and proved that deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month and besides this, he was earning Rs.50/- as daily expenses. Thus, the deceased was earning salary to the tune of Rs.3500/-per month. The Tribunal has held it as Rs.3000/- per month, has fallen in an error in holding that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month. The proved fact of the matter is that he was earning Rs.3500/- per month. Even otherwise, by guesswork, it can be safely held that the income of the deceased was not less than Rs.4000/- per month. The apex Court has laid down in 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, that 1/3rd was to be deducted towards personal expenses. The apex Court has laid down in 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, that 1/3rd was to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, it can be safely held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2800/- per month. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error by applying the multiplier of “15” whereas, the multiplier of “16” was applicable, in view of the Supreme Court judgments, supra read with the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Having said so, the claimants are entitled to Rs.2800x12=33600x16=Rs.5,37,600/-. 6. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest from today, within six weeks. On deposit, the same be released to the claimant, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above. Send down the record forthwith.