JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. This appeal has bee preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Tribunal') by its award dated 19th March, 2001. By the said award, the learned Tribunal, on adjudication of the claim of appellants, has assessed compensation in the tune of Rs. 2,13,500/- under different heads in favour of the appellants. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award, mainly on four grounds. Firstly, the income of the deceased Ghanshyam has not been properly considered and calculated. Secondly, looking to the number of dependents upon deceased, deduction for his personal living expenses has not been properly made. Thirdly, the multiplier has not been properly pressed into service by the learned Tribunal. Fourthly, the quantum of award for loss of consortium and love and affection has not been properly determined by the learned Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued on these grounds during his submissions made before this Court. He has submitted that apart from his regular monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-, deceased Ghanshyam was also earning a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing binding work in the printing press. AW - 3 Kedar has deposed in his statement about this income of deceased but the learned Tribunal has erroneously discarded the evidence in this regard. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly there were four dependents of the deceased Ghanshyam i.e. his wife Mrs. Gayatri and three children, namely, Vijay Kumar, Priyanka and Satya Prakash who were 29 years, 11 years, 8 years and 5 years of age at the time of his death. His submission is that in view of the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SC 121, deduction for personal living expenses of deceased Ghanshyam should have been made at the rate of one-fourth whereas the learned Tribunal has allowed the deduction at the rate of one-third which was not proper. It has also been averred that in view of Sarla Verma's judgment (supra), multiplier of 16 should have been pressed into service as the age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of death but the learned Tribunal erroneously adopted the multiplier of 15 only. It has also been argued that a meagre amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded for the widow of deceased Ghanshyam, who was merely of the age of 29 years at the time of death of her husband. Likewise, a very meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- each has been awarded to the children of deceased Ghanshyam, who were deprived from the love and affection of their father at the age of 11 years, 8 years and 5 years only. It has also been stated that the interest @ 6% per annum only has been awarded which is required to be enhanced. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has prayed that the appeal filed on behalf of the widow and children of deceased Ghanshyam for enhancement of the award amount may kindly be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company has forcefully opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. He has submitted that in face of salary certificate (Exhibit-9) produced on behalf of the claimants, there was no justification to include the additional income of the deceased for any private work. Thus, the learned Tribunal was right in ignoring the said income allegedly received by deceased from the binding work. The multiplier has also been correctly pressed into service by the learned Tribunal. Deduction for personal expenses of the deceased can also not been faulted with. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company has submitted that the award given by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no justification for enhancing the same. 5. In light of the arguments advanced by the rival sides and the judgments relied upon by them, I have given thoughtful consideration to the material available on record. 6. 5. In light of the arguments advanced by the rival sides and the judgments relied upon by them, I have given thoughtful consideration to the material available on record. 6. The claim petition came to be filed by the claimants with the averments that on 21.02.1996 when Ghanshyam Chechani was making payment to the auto-rikshaw driver after alighting therefrom at transport market, Bhilwara, a truck bearing No. DLG 7409 came speedily and ran over him and one more person standing near the road side. Ghanshyam died on the spot due to the accident. He was of the age of 32 years and was employed in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons, Bhilwara on Rs. 1000/- per month. He was also earning Rs. 1500/- per month out of his private job. He was having one wife and three children as his dependant family members. 7. Insofar as, income of the deceased Ghanshyam is concerned, it is to note that AW-1 Smt. Gayatri has stated that her husband was employed in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons on the monthly salary of Rs. 1,000/-. Besides this, he used to earn Rs. 1000/- - 1500/- from the binding work. During cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that her husband was not doing the binding work. AW-3 Kedar has deposed that he runs "Dad Printing Press" and Ghanshyam Chechani used to do binding work in his press and was paid the amount as per the work done by him. Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1200/- was being paid to him monthly on an average. He has also denied the suggestion put during his cross-examination that the deceased was not doing any work in his press, though, he has admitted that he did not maintain any account of the binding work. In light of these statements, this inference is very well drawn that besides the employment in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons at the monthly salary of Rs. 1000/-, deceased Ghanshyam was also doing the binding work in Dad Printing Press and was earning Rs. 1000/- - Rs. 1200/- per month on an average by doing this work. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 116 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- "22. 1000/- - Rs. 1200/- per month on an average by doing this work. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 116 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- "22. Appellants' claimed a sum of Rs. 2,36,000/-. But PW-1 widow of the deceased said that her husband's income was Rs. 1,500/- per month. PW- 4 brother of the deceased also supported the same version. No contra evidence has been adduced in regard to that aspect. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,500/-." 9. In this matter in hand also , no contra evidence has been adduced by the respondent Insurance Company that the deceased Ghanshyam was not doing any binding work. On the contrary, AW-1 and AW-3 have denied the suggestion put during their cross-examination that deceased Ghanshyam was not doing any binding work. In view of this, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal to discard the income of deceased Ghanshyam by way of doing binding work cannot be sustained. The argument advanced in this regard by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is also not found convincing that in face of salary certificate (Exhibit-9), the additional income of the deceased by way of binding work could not have been taken into consideration. It is an established case of the appellants that besides the regular employment in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons, the deceased was doing binding work on part-time basis in Dad Printing Press. In such circumstance, the income of part-time job was necessarily required to be clubbed in the monthly income of regular employment of the deceased. Thus, taking the minimum amount as deposed by AW-3, which is Rs. 1000/- per month earned by the deceased on an average by the binding work, his total income comes to Rs. 2,000/- per month i.e., Rs. 1000/- from regular employment in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons and Rs. 1000/- from the binding work on part-time basis. 10. Besides it, learned Tribunal has allowed the addition of 50% in income of deceased for future prospects. No contention has been raised on behalf of the respondents against this addition. 2,000/- per month i.e., Rs. 1000/- from regular employment in M/s Sohan Lal & Sons and Rs. 1000/- from the binding work on part-time basis. 10. Besides it, learned Tribunal has allowed the addition of 50% in income of deceased for future prospects. No contention has been raised on behalf of the respondents against this addition. Hence, while allowing the addition of 50% in income for future prospects, the income of the deceased Ghanshyam comes to Rs. 3,000/- per month. 11. Learned Tribunal has deducted one-third of the income of deceased for his personal living expenses. In view of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there are, in all, four dependents upon the deceased namely, his wife and three children, the deduction for personal expenses ought to have been calculated at the rate of one-fourth. In this regard, guidance can be taken from the decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) wherein, it has been held as follows:- "14. .................... Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (¼th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six." 12. In my considered view, deduction for personal living expenses is required to be allowed as per Sarla Verma's case at the rate of one-fourth (¼th) in place of one-third (1/3rd) which was allowed by the learned Tribunal taking into consideration of number of dependents upon the deceased. Thus, the net income of the deceased Ghanshyam to be taken into consideration comes to Rs. 2,250/- (Rs.3000 - 750/-). 13. Learned Tribunal has pressed into service the multiplier of 15 for which, no reason has been assigned in the award impugned. It is pertinent to note here that to standardize the calculation of and to maintain uniformity in the awards passed by various Tribunals through-out the country, the Hon'ble Apex Court has drawn a table in para 19 of the judgment rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). It is pertinent to note here that to standardize the calculation of and to maintain uniformity in the awards passed by various Tribunals through-out the country, the Hon'ble Apex Court has drawn a table in para 19 of the judgment rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). The view expressed in Sarla Verma's case (supra) has further been fortified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 . 14. In Reshma Kumari's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was addressing the issues referred to the larger bench to consider the divergence observations made in various judgments. Having taken into consideration various aspects, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows in para 34 of the judgment in Reshma Kumari's case:- "34. If the multiplier as indicated in column (4) of the Table read with para 21 of the Report in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the Table in Sarla Verma (supra) for the selection of multiplier in claim applications made under section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly..................." 15. In the matter in hand, there is no dispute as to the age of deceased Ghanshyam, which was admittedly 32 years at the time of his death. Thus, as per the table given in para 19 of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the multiplier of 16 is required to be pressed into service for the age of 32 years. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs. 2250/- x 12 x 16) in place of Rs. 1,80,000/- as calculated by the learned Tribunal. 16. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- each to the three children of the deceased for loss of love and affection. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/- (Rs. 2250/- x 12 x 16) in place of Rs. 1,80,000/- as calculated by the learned Tribunal. 16. Further, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- each to the three children of the deceased for loss of love and affection. It is pertinent to note here that at the time of death of deceased Ghanshyam, his wife Gayatri was stated to be 29 years of age and his children, namely, Vijay Kumar, Kumari Priyanka and Satya Prakash, were stated to be 11, 8 and 5 years of age. Definitely, they have been deprived of the help, care, protection and love and affection of their father/husband at a very tender age. Suffering of the family due to untimely death of single bread-winner cannot be compensated in terms of money but even then, the Tribunal is expected to make some endevarous to gauge the wounds of the family. As this law of compensation is a welfare measure, a benevolent view is required to be taken to give solace to the bereaved family members by awarding a just and reasonable amount in this head. 17. In my considered opinion, the amount is required to be enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- for loss of consortium and from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- each to the three children for loss of love and affection. Thus, in all, Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 45,000/- is required to be awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants on these heads. Thus, the total amount of award comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-+ Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 45,000/- = Rs. 5,27,000/-. 18. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has also submitted that a simple interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition which is very meagre. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company submits that this was a reasonable rate of interest in the year 2001 when the award was given. I do not feel persuaded to concur with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Even in the year 2001, the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum was on the lower side. This requires to be enhanced at least to 7.5% per annum. I do not feel persuaded to concur with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Even in the year 2001, the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum was on the lower side. This requires to be enhanced at least to 7.5% per annum. This rate of interest of 7.5% will be applicable, of course, from the date of filing of the claim petition. 19. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the claimants-appellants is allowed in terms of whatever stated above. The quantum of award is enhanced to Rs. 5,27,000/- and the rate of interest is enhanced to 7.5% per annum with simple interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 20. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellants-claimants, jointly or severally, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. 21. Costs are made easy. 22. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly.