JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 31st July, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Patan, in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 473 of 2002 and No. 474 of 2002, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,14,400/- to the claimants of MACP No. 473 of 2002 and Rs. 1,30,400/- to the claimants of MACP No. 474 of 2002. 2. As in the said accident, the parents of the appellants died, the appellants-claimants in both the appeals are same and by way of preferring the present appeals, the appellants-original claimants have, inter alia, contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has awarded compensation on lower side. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has adopted a very conservative view while assessing the income of the deceased. It is therefore, requested to enhance the amount of compensation. 3. The brief facts of the case are that deceased-Ramdas Nathuramdas Sadhu and his wife - Gauriben Ramdas Sadhu were going towards Shankeshwar on 7.10.1991 on motorcycle No. GJ-UA-9786. Deceased - Ramdsas was riding the said motorcycle and Gauriben was pillion rider. At 9:00 a.m on 7.10.1991, original opponent No. 1 came riding his Jeep No. GAP-9095, from opposite side, rashly and negligently, endangering human lives, and collided with the motorcycle of Ramdas. As a result, accident occurred wherein Ramdas died on the spot and Gauriben received grievous injuries and was shifted to Patan Government Hospital, where she also succumbed to her injuries. 4. Heard Mr. Amit Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company. 5. Mr. Amit Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellants has reiterated the grounds mentioned in the appeal and thus contended that the learned Tribunal has notionally considered the income of the deceased-Ramdas to be Rs. 1,250/- per month whereas deceased-Ramdas was running grocery shop and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month and similarly, deceased-Gauriben was engaged in tailoring work and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month and the said fact was proved by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence, but learned Tribunal has overlooked the same. 6. On the other hand, Mr. 1,250/- per month whereas deceased-Ramdas was running grocery shop and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month and similarly, deceased-Gauriben was engaged in tailoring work and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month and the said fact was proved by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence, but learned Tribunal has overlooked the same. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation in view of the evidence available on the record. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgments and award after taking into consideration the entire material on record and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the present appeals may be dismissed. 7. So far as the income of deceased-Ramdas is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was engaged himself in running his own grocery shop and deceased-Ramdas was also priest (pujari) in a temple and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. In order to prove his income, a certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat is produced. Therefore, occupation of the deceased-Ramdas is proved but no concrete evidence regarding his income is produced on record, therefore, learned Tribunal presumed notionally income of deceased-Ramdas to be 15,000/- per annum. On going through the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal, prima facie, it appears to be erroneous as the claimants have produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his say. Therefore, income of the deceased was required to be counted in light of the aforesaid evidence on record. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to presume income of deceased-Ramdas inclusive of prospective rise to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. So far as the age of the deceased-Ramdas is concerned, the age of the deceased-Ramdas is proved by the Tribunal to be 45 years, therefore, deceased was falling in the age group 46-50 years. 8. 3,000/- per month. So far as the age of the deceased-Ramdas is concerned, the age of the deceased-Ramdas is proved by the Tribunal to be 45 years, therefore, deceased was falling in the age group 46-50 years. 8. As per the guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , as the claimants are three in number, therefore, in view of the aforesaid guidelines, 1/3rd amount, i.e. Rs. 1000/- is required to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses if had he would have been alive, and the hence the amount comes to (Rs. 3,000-Rs. 1000) = Rs. 2,000/- per month. 9. Considering the age of the deceased which is falling within the age group of 46 to 50 years, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 13 multiplier shall be applicable for the age groups of 45 to 50 years. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 13, the amount comes to Rs. 3,12,000/- (Rs. 2,000 × 12 × 13) towards loss of dependency. Moreover, the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 55,000/- under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,67,000/- (Rs. 3,12,000+55,000). As the deceased has been held contributory negligence to the extent of 20% of the aforesaid amount of compensation, therefore, 20% shall be reduced from the aforesaid compensation and upon doing so, it comes to Rs. 73,400/- (Rs. 3,67,000 × 20/100). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 2,93,600/- (Rs. 3,67,000-Rs. 73,400). 10. So far as the income of deceased-Gauriben is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that deceased-Gauriben was engaged in tailoring and household work and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month. In order to prove her income, bill of sewing machine has been produced on record by the claimants. Taking into consideration the year of the accident i.e. 1991, income of the deceased-Gauriben easily presumed to be Rs. 3,000/- per month inclusive of prospective rise. So far as the age of deceased-Gauriben is concerned, school leaving certificate has been produced on record by the claimants wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 1.6.1952 and accordingly, her age is proved to be 40 years. 3,000/- per month inclusive of prospective rise. So far as the age of deceased-Gauriben is concerned, school leaving certificate has been produced on record by the claimants wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 1.6.1952 and accordingly, her age is proved to be 40 years. Therefore, deceased was falling in the age group 36-40 years. As per the guide lines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), as the claimants are three in number, therefore, in view of the aforesaid guidelines, 1/3rd amount, i.e. Rs. 1000/- is required to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses if had she would have been alive, and the hence the amount comes to (Rs. 3,000-Rs. 1000)- Rs. 2,000/- per month. 11. Considering the age of the deceased which is falling within the age group of 36 to 40 years, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 15 multiplier shall be applicable for the age groups of 36 to 40 years. Therefore, applying the multiplier of 15, the amount comes to Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 2,000 × 12 × 15) towards loss of dependency. Moreover, the claimants are also entitled for Rs. 55,000/- under the conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, etc. Therefore, the claimants shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- (Rs. 3,60,000+55,000). 12. For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 473 of 2002, is hereby modified and the amount of compensation awarded Rs. 1,14,400/- is enhanced to Rs. 2,93,600/- and in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 474 of 2002, is hereby modified and the amount of compensation awarded Rs. 1,30400/- is enhanced to Rs. 4,15,000/- with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petitions till realization. The balanced enhanced amount of compensation with interest from the date of application till realization to be deposited by the respondents with the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of this order and on such deposit, the same shall be paid to the original claimants by account payee cheque on proper identification and verification. The appellants are directed to deposit deficit court fees, if any, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to return the R & P, if any, forthwith to the learned Tribunal.