JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation, as awarded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 (MACT Cases), Jodhpur in M.A.C. Case No. 250/2008. 2. The appellants have prayed that the amount of compensation awarded on account of death of deceased Madan Lal to the tune of Rs. 3,87,500/- is not adequate and the same is required to be enhanced. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Madan Lal was husband of the appellant- claimant No. 1 Smt. Kiran and son of the appellant-claimant No. 2 Smt. Shanti Devi. The mother of the deceased Smt.Shanti Devi expired during pendency of the present appeal before this court and her legal representatives have been brought on record i.e. the appellants-claimants No. 2/1 Vimla Sharma wife of Gordhan and No. 2/2 Kusum Lata wife of Rajesh. 4. The deceased on 01.07.2006 was going on his Luna moped from Bhaskar Nagar (Jodhpur) to City and after reaching near Shyam Restaurant, Pal Road, he was hit by a City Bus No. RJ-19/P2241. The deceased on sustaining head injury was taken to hospital and eventually he died there. An FIR also came to be lodged against Driver of the said City Bus. 5. The appellants/claimants filed Claim Petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur and in all they claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the Insurance Company, Driver and Owner of the City Bus. An FIR also came to be lodged against Driver of the said City Bus. 5. The appellants/claimants filed Claim Petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur and in all they claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the Insurance Company, Driver and Owner of the City Bus. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed following issues:- ^^1- vk;k fnukad 01-07-2006 dks 3-00 ls 3-30 cts nksigj esa ikyjksM utnhd ';ke jsLVksjsUV tks/kiqj 'kgj ij okgu la[;k vkjŒtsŒ 19ihŒ 2241 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 2 ds }kjk vius okgu dks mis{kk ,oa ykijokgh ls pykdj dkfjr dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa enu 'kekZ iq= ckywjke ds lk/kkj.k ,oa xaHkhj pksVs igqaph vkSj bu pksVksa ds dkj.k enu 'kekZ iq= ckywjke dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k ÁkFkhZx.k viuh ;kfpdk esa of.kZrkuqlkj {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k ÁkIRk djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdruh jkf'k dkSu&dkSu ÁkFkhZx.k ,oa fdl&fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl dnj\ 3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 3 chek dEiuh ds }kjk ÁLrqr tokc dh vkifRr;ksa esa of.kZrkuqlkj okgu Lokeh }kjk chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZ dk mYya?ku djus ds dkj.k chek dEiuh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ds fy, nkf;Rok/khu ugha gS\ 4- nknjlh\** 6. The learned Tribunal also recorded evidence on behalf of the claimants AW-1 Smt. Kiran, AW-2 Dudaram and AW-3 Rajendra and further exhibited 22 documents including the certificate of income of the deceased as Exh-22. 7. The respondents, on the other hand, examined NAW-1 Goparam, NAW-2 Raju Puri and NAW-3 Umesh and exhibited 23 documents and the Insurance Company also got the license and insurance policy exhibited in evidence. 8. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1, with regard to rash and negligent driving of the Driver, in favour of the claimants and the issue No. 3, with regard to violation of terms of insurance policy, was decided against the Insurance Company. In respect of the issue No. 2, with regard to amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal found that income of the deceased was to be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The multiplier of 15 was also adopted in determining the income. The learned Tribunal by taking monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- and applying multiplier of 15 calculated the amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd share towards personal expenses, the total amount was calculated to Rs. 3,60,000/- the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month. The multiplier of 15 was also adopted in determining the income. The learned Tribunal by taking monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- and applying multiplier of 15 calculated the amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd share towards personal expenses, the total amount was calculated to Rs. 3,60,000/- the Tribunal also awarded Rs. 27,500/- additional amount for loss of companionship, funeral charges, etc. and thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,87,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 09.10.2006, came to be awarded. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the claimants had amply proved that deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as he was a trained Carpenter. Learned counsel has submitted that presumption by the learned Tribunal has wrongly been drawn that daily wages of a skilled Carpenter cannot be more than Rs. 3,000/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that finding on issue No. 2 deserves to be set aside/modified and the compensation is required to be enhanced by assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 6,000/- per month. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar M. vs. Managing Director, Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2017) 5 SCC 79 . Learned counsel on strength of the said judgment submitted that for self employed claimant, working in unorganized sector, self estimation of earning around Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/- p.m. is a valid basis and even if there is no evidence of income available on record, daily-rated worker and piece-rated worker, earn upto Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/- per month. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court is reproduced hereunder:- "5. No doubt, there was no evidence available with regard to the income of the appellant but there is no dispute on the fact that he was a painter by profession. The accident happened in the year 2013 when he was living in Bangalore, Karnataka. For a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece rated work as well. That is why he made a moderate self estimation of his income to Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/-. 6. For a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece rated work as well. That is why he made a moderate self estimation of his income to Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/-. 6. In the absence of any serious dispute on the part of the respondent on the avocation and income, we are of the view that the Tribunal and for that matter the High Court should have accepted the evidence of the appellant. Therefore, we assess his monthly income as Rs. 15,000/- and after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, the income will be assessed for the purpose of computation of compensation as Rs. 10,000/- per month. The income is substituted as Rs. 10,000/- in the place of Rs. 6,500/- as assessed by the High Court. The compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Rest of the award is maintained. 7. The respondent is directed to work out the compensation in the light of this judgment and deposit the amount before the Tribunal within a period of three months from today and if not the appellant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. 8. The appeal is allowed, to the above extent. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs." 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company Mr. Sanjeev Johri submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the award and as such it requires no interference by this court. Counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that multiplier of 15, as adopted by the learned Tribunal, is also not proper. The learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and submitted that considering the age of the deceased, as he was around 45 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 14 should have been adopted instead of 15. 12. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. 13. This court finds that the learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated the income of deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. This court finds that the evidence which was led by the claimants established that the deceased was employed with the employer and he being a skilled Carpenter, no presumption could have been drawn of earning of Rs. 100/- per day only. 14. This court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar M. (supra) has also considered that if a Painter is employed to do daily work and sometimes piece-rated work as well, such person can earn Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/- per month and self estimation of such income, ought to have been taken into account. 15. This court finds that salary of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month and accordingly the calculation and computation ought to have been made. This court further finds that multiplier of 14 was required to be applied as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra). 16. This court accordingly finds that award dated 28.01.2009 requires to be modified and the enhanced amount of income at Rs. 5,000/- per month, by applying multiplier of 14, is required to be paid to the appellants-claimants. This court after applying the income and multiplier, finds the final calculation as under:- Salary Rs. 5,000/- Annual Income (5000 x 12) Rs. 60,000/- Add: Future prospects (25%) Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 75,000/- Less: 1/3rd personal expenses (25,000) Rs. 50,000/- Add: Multiplier (14 x 50,000/-) Rs. 7,00,000/- Add: Loss of companionship Rs. 70,000/- Add: Other expenses Rs. 2,500/- Total Rs. 7,72,500/- Less: Amount already awarded Rs. 3,87,500/- Balance amount Rs. 3,85,000/- Less: Deduction u/Sec. 140 M.V. Act Rs. 50,000/- Total Enhanced Amount Rs. 3,35,000/- 17. This court accordingly modifies the award dated 28.01.2009 and holds that total enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 09.10.2006 is required to be paid to the appellants-claimants. The amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- 17. This court accordingly modifies the award dated 28.01.2009 and holds that total enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 09.10.2006 is required to be paid to the appellants-claimants. The amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- be kept in FDR for one year in a Nationalized Bank in favour of the appellant-claimant No. 1 Smt. Kiran (wife of the deceased) and out of the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- amount of Rs. 50,000/- each be kept in FDR in a Nationalized Bank in favour of the legal representatives of Smt. Shanti Devi i.e. appellant-claimant No. 2/1 and No. 2/2 Vimla Sharma and Kusum Lata respectively and the remaining amount of Rs. 85,000/- and interest on the enhanced amount @ 7.5% p.a. should be deposited in the Savings Bank account of the appellant- claimant No. 1 Smt. Kiran (wife of the deceased). 18. With the above modification in the award dated 28.01.2009, the present appeal stands disposed of.