JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Karanpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide impugned judgment and award dated 12.08.2002 passed in Civil Misc. (MACT) case No.73/97 (3/96) whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.3,67,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the claimants/appellants being the mother, wife, sons and daughters of the deceased Desh Raj filed a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.33,10,000/- under various heads towards the loss suffered by them on account of the death of Sh. Desh Raj in the accident dated 12.11.1995. In the claim petition, it was averred that on 12.11.1995 Desh Raj (deceased) while coming from 17 BB to Padampur on his Maruta, was hit by Bus bearing registration No.RJ-14/P/2198 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation which was being driven by respondent No.2 Jagtar Singh rashly and negligently, which resulted into the instantaneous death of Desh Raj. The said accident was reported to the police P.S. Padampur on 12.11.1995 itself on which F.I.R. No.263/1995 State v. Jagtar Singh was registered under Sections 304-A, 337 & 279 I.P.C. 3. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against respondent No.2 Jagtar Singh for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 I.P.C. 4. Respondent-RSRTC filed reply denying its liability by pleading that the accident did not take place because of the negligence of the bus driver but the same was occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased himself, who was driving the Maruta at the relevant time and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including the issue of relief. The claimants got examined three witnesses and got exhibited 29 documents. On the other hand, the respondent-RSRTC examined one witness. 6. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues including the issue of relief. The claimants got examined three witnesses and got exhibited 29 documents. On the other hand, the respondent-RSRTC examined one witness. 6. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, vide its judgment and award dated 12.08.2002 awarded compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- and further directed that the claimants shall be entitled to get the interest @ 9% per annum if the amount of compensation is not paid within one month from the date of award, but no interest was awarded on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed grave error of law while passing the impugned award as the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/-. It is further argued that learned Tribunal has not applied the proper multiplier while computing the compensation. Further it is submitted that amount of compensation awarded in other head is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. The learned Tribunal committed a grave legal error in not awarding any interest on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of filing of the application till the date of realisation. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-RSRTC has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the claimant/appellant and submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no interference. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Judge, MACT cases, Sri Karanpur. 10. So far as the monthly income of the deceased Desh Raj is concerned, his mother Smt. Bhirawan Bai and his wife Lajwanti in their statement stated that Desh Raj was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by driving Marutha. However, no documentary evidence was produced with regard to the income of the deceased Desh Raj. From the evidence, it reveals that the deceased Desh Raj was earning Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day by driving Marutha. However, no documentary evidence was produced with regard to the income of the deceased Desh Raj. From the evidence, it reveals that the deceased Desh Raj was earning Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per day by driving Marutha. The learned Tribunal has taken average monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/-. In the opinion of this Court, looking to the number of dependent of the deceased Desh Raj, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.2,500/- and after deducting 1/ 3rd on account of personal expenses, the monthly income comes to Rs.2,000/-. 11. So far as the applicability of multiplier is concerned, the learned Tribunal taking the age of the deceased as 25 years adopted the multiplier of 17. In the opinion of this Court, the multiplier of 17 adopted for computing the compensation is without justification and erroneous and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma [Smt.] & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 , multiplier of 18 should have been applied. Hon'ble Apex Court while assessing the multiplier in para 42 of said judgment has held as under:- "We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 12. Hence the loss of dependency deserves to be recalculated as under:- 2,000 x 12 x 18 = 4,32,000/- 13. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the claimant/wife as consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection. Hence the loss of dependency deserves to be recalculated as under:- 2,000 x 12 x 18 = 4,32,000/- 13. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the claimant/wife as consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection. As regards consortium for mental agony, loss of love and affection for the wife of the deceased, in the opinion of this Court, it has been awarded on a lower side as at the time of accident the wife of the deceased must have suffered a great shock and agony and should have been awarded at least Rs.1,00,000/- on this count. Thus, it is held that the claimant/wife is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium for mental agony and deprivation of married life. The award of Rs.2,000/- toward funeral expenses is also on lower side and in the opinion of this Court at least Rs.25,000/- should have been awarded on this Court. It is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation awarded under other heads to the claimants does not call for any interference. 14. The learned Tribunal has not awarded interest on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to interest upon the amount awarded @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while modifying the judgment and award dated 12.08.2002, the claimants are held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- on account of loss of income and the claimant/wife is held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and deprivation of married life as also Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses. In all, the claimants/appellants are entitled to get compensation to a sum of Rs.5,57,000/- inclusive the amount already paid by the respondent-RSRTC. The claimants will be entitled to get interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation.