JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 27th October, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 6 of 2009, titled as Ms. Kubja Devi and others versus Smt. Amrita Devi and others, whereby, compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,89,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The insurer and the legal representatives of deceased owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Appellants-claimants have called in question the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Heard. 5. I have gone through the impugned award and perused the record. It appears that the Tribunal has fallen in an error while assessing the income of the deceased for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 6. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was a contractor and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Though, the claimants have placed on record the documents relating to allotment of tender in favour of the deceased but there is no prima facie proof on the file, which can be made the basis for holding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 20,000/-. 7. The fact of the matter is that the deceased was 54 years of age and even if he is considered to be a labourer, he would not have been earning less than Rs. 4,500/- per month. One third was to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 8. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 8. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 11' in view of Sarla Verma's and Reshma Kumari's cases (supra) read with the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”). 9. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 3,000/- x12 x 11 = Rs. 3,96,000/- under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. 10. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs. 10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate', 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses'. 11. Viewed thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,96,000/-+Rs.10,000/-+ Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs.4,36,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 12. The enhanced awarded amount be deposited before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition of the amount, the entire awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 14. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.