JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 30th October, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, in a Claim Petition No.129-S/2 of 2006/05, titled Keshav Ram and another vs. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till deposit , was awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, ‘the impugned award’). 2. Owner/insured, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Appellants before this Court are the claimants, who 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 just and proper? 5. In order to determine this issue, it is necessary to have a glance of the facts of the case, which have given birth to the present appeal. 6. The deceased, on 21st March, 2005, was traveling in a bus. While alighting from the bus at St. Edward’s School, Ambassador Car bearing No.HP-03-4045, being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased Vidya Devi, as a result of which she sustained injuries, was taken to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, where she was declared as brought dead. Thus, the claimants filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 7. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.6000-7000/- per month. The Tribunal, after making guess work, came to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month, out of which 50% was deducted and it was concluded that the deceased was contributing Rs.2,000/- per month to her family. 8. On both the above counts, the Tribunal has fallen in error. Now-a-days, even a labourer earns not less than Rs.6000/- per month. The deceased Vidya Devi was a housewife and would have been contributing towards her family by doing domestic chores. Therefore, the income of the deceased can safely be assessed as Rs.4500/- per month. 9. 8. On both the above counts, the Tribunal has fallen in error. Now-a-days, even a labourer earns not less than Rs.6000/- per month. The deceased Vidya Devi was a housewife and would have been contributing towards her family by doing domestic chores. Therefore, the income of the deceased can safely be assessed as Rs.4500/- per month. 9. In terms of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. 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 vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, 1/3rd was to be deducted. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting 50% from the income of the deceased. Accordingly, 1/3rd income is deducted and it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. 10. Admittedly, the deceased Vidya Devi, wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant No.2, was 41 years of age at the time of accident. In my opinion, the Tribunal has also fallen in error while applying the multiplier of 12. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the claimants, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), I hold that multiplier of 14 is applicable in the present case. 11. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.3000 x 12 x 14). 12. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.32,000/- under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’, which, in my opinion, is also on the lower side and is accordingly enhanced as under:- (i) Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- (ii) Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- (iv) Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 13. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.5,44,000/-, (Rs.5,04,000 + Rs.40,000), as compensation, along with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned award. 15. 14. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, if not already deposited, within a period of four weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned award. 15. The impugned award is modified and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.