JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants- appellants against the judgment and award dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case No.863/2015 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been allowed and the respondent- Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.17,68,138/- to the claimants-appellants. 2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.17,68,138/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has made a limited prayer before this Court that the Tribunal deducted the personal expenses of the deceased as 1/2, while as per the judgment of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses should have been done. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Kanwar & ors. Reported in 2021(2) RAR 525 (Raj.). Therefore, learned counsel prayed that the award passed by the Tribunal needs suitable enhancement. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellants has correctly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. She further submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are major sons and married daughter of the deceased and in any case, they cannot be treated as dependants of the deceased and this fact was taken into consideration by the Tribunal that it is only the wife of the deceased, who was dependant upon the deceased. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. 7. She further submits that the impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. 7. She further submits that the impugned judgment and award does not call for any interference by this Court. However, she is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the appellant with respect to recomputation of the award in the light of judgment passed in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). 8. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 14.06.2019 as well as the other relevant documents available on record. 9. Admittedly, appellants No. 2 to 4 are major sons and married daughter of the deceased, hence, in any case, they cannot be treated as dependants upon the deceased. But at the same time, this fact cannot be disputed in the light of judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) that the Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd personal expenses but instead of doing so, the Tribunal has deducted 1/2 personal expenses towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has held in the case of Santosh Kanwar (supra) that the maximum deduction towards personal expenses was treated as 1/3rd even if the dependant is one in number only. Para Nos. 10, 14, 17, 18 & 19 of the said judgment reads as under:- '10. It was submitted that a plain reading of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) would indicate that in case of a married person, the maximum deduction, towards personal expenses would be one-third, even if dependent is one only. 14. The facts are not in dispute and even quantum of compensation also is not in dispute. The only dispute pertains to the deduction for personal expenses applied by the Tribunal, the application of split multiplier and the deduction for the amount of pension to be received by the wife of the deceased. 17. A plain reading of the above determination reveals that in case of a deceased, who is married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third and the said one-third would extend in case the dependents are up to 3. 18. In view thereof, the plea sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellants on the said aspect has no substance. 19. 18. In view thereof, the plea sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellants on the said aspect has no substance. 19. In fact in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) 50% deduction has only been envisaged in case of death of a bachelor. 11. Thus, in the light of aforesaid judgments, the award is recomputed as under:- Loss of income of deceased as assessed by the Tribunal Rs. 33,96,276/- 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of deceased Rs. 33,96,276/- - Rs. 11,32,092/- Rs. 22,64,184/- Loss of income of dependants as awarded by the Tribunal Rs.16,98,138/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.22,64,184/- - Rs. 16,98,138/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 5,66,046/- 12. In view of the above, the appellant-claimant No.1 (wife) would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 5,66,046/-. Insurance company is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 5,66,046/-within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment is made. 13. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.1,00,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the claimant (wife) and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellant-claimant on monthly basis. 14. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of. 15. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. 16. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.