JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 10th July, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, HP (for short "the Tribunal") in MACP No. 52G/06, titled as Smt. Saroj Devi and others versus Haryana Roadways Transport Depot Ballabhgarh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 4,83,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the respondents (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The appellants-claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 3. The insurer, owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is inadequate? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons: 5. The insurer and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award, thus, the factum of insurance and liability is not in dispute. 6. Admittedly, deceased Madan Singh was 47 years of age at the time of the accident, as has been held by the Tribunal while determining issue No. 2. It is pleaded that he was a mason by profession and his monthly income was 8,000/- per month from this profession and other vocations, but, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as 200/- per day at the relevant point of time and held that the income of the deceased was 5,000/- per month, but has fallen in an error in deducting one third 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 Supreme Court Cases 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, one-fourth was to be deducted. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of 4,000/- per month. 7. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, one-fourth was to be deducted. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of 4,000/- per month. 7. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 12' 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”). 8. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to 4,000/-x12 x 12 = 5,76,000/- under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. 9. The claimants are also held entitled to 10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of estate', 'loss of love and affect' and 'funeral expenses'. 10. Viewed thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of 5,76,000/-+ 10,000/-+ 10,000/-+ 10,000/-+ 10,000/-= 6,16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 11. 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. 12. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.