JUDGMENT : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Appellants herein, inter-alia, seek enhancement of the compensation by challenging the judgment/order dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in case No.17/2018 vide which a compensation of Rs.55,95,195/- has been awarded to them with interest thereon @7% from 08.01.2018 ( the date of filing claim petition before the Tribunal). 2. The brief facts are that on 24.09.2017, Pradeep Charan and deceased Narpat Singh Charan were going on motorcycle No.RJ-22- SU-8321 from Vayad towards Bhadrajun. At about 6.15 AM, when they were near Krishan Gaushala, a car No.RJ-16-CB-0135 belonging to and being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 came from wrong side and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of said accident Narpat Singh sustained head injury and died on the spot. Therefore, the appellants claimant filed claim petition and claimed compensation of Rs.75,86,216/-. 2.1 That after issuance of notices, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 filed its reply contesting the claim. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed issued of which English translation is as under: “Issue No.1: on 24.09.2017 at about 6.15 a.m., on the road from Bhadrajun to Jodhpur, near Krishna Gaushala in Sarhad Bhadrajun, Non Claimant No. 1 Hans Goswami, while driving his vehicle Swift car No. RJ 16 BC 0135 at high speed and carelessly, hit the motorcycle RJ 22 SU 8321 coming from the front, in which accident the deceased Narpat Singh died due to serious injuries? Issue No.2: Whether the Claimants are entitled to receive the claim amount of Rs. 75,86,216/- jointly and separately from non-Claimant No. 1 and 2 as per the details given in the claim Petition? Issue No.3: What are the effect of the defenses mentioned under the heading "Special Objections" in the reply of Non Claimant No. 2 on the claim Petition? Issue No.4: Relief ? ” 2.2 Contesting parties led evidence. On behalf of the claimant appellants AW-1 Smt. Hemlata Kanwar, AW-2 Pradeep Charan and AW-3 Shaitan Singh appeared in evidence and submitted 49 documents. On behalf of respondent No.1, NAW Ghanshyam Vyas appeared in evidence and submitted five documents. 3. After considering the record, the learned Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the claimants and against respondent No. 1. On behalf of respondent No.1, NAW Ghanshyam Vyas appeared in evidence and submitted five documents. 3. After considering the record, the learned Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the claimants and against respondent No. 1. Qua, issue No. 2, it was held that the Claimants are entitled to receive the claim amount of Rs. 55,95,195/- jointly and separately from non-Claimant No. 1 and 2. 4. The claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the learned Tribunal erred firstly; in making a deduction of Rs.5,899/- for income tax from the income of the deceased. Secondly; by excluding the 64 years old father of the deceased from his dependents and thus deducting 1/3 rd instead of 1/4th of his net income for personal expenses and also erred by awarding a low rate of 7% interest on compensation amount. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 refutes the aforesaid contentions. He contends that just and fair and compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. There is no justification for it’s enhancement and appeal be thus dismissed. 7. Having heard both sides and perused the record, I am inclined to agree to the contention of learned counsel for appellants that the learned Tribunal erred by deducting 1/3 rd instead of 1/4th of his net income for personal expenses. AW Hem Lata Kanwar deposed that owing to the sudden death of her husband, his aged parents also have been deprived of his financial support. There is nothing on record brought to my notice that the claimants No. 3 and 4- Madan Singh stated aged 69 years and his wife (parents of the deceased) at the time of filing this appeal in July, 2023 had any source of his own income. Besides parents, the deceased left behind his widow and minor son claimant-appellant No. 2. The learned Tribunal determined the post tax net monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,376/- (50% thereof was added for future prospects). As per the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 and considering the size of family and relevant other facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that a deduction of 1/4th of for personal expenses of the deceased would be fair and reasonable. Holding accordingly, finding of the learned Tribunal in this behalf is modified. 8. Holding accordingly, finding of the learned Tribunal in this behalf is modified. 8. To my mind, no fault can be found with the award owing to the deduction of statutory income tax from the income of the deceased, while computing compensation. Similarly, the rate of 7% interest awarded by the learned Tribunal seems fair and reasonable. 9. As a result of the above discussion, the amount of just and fair compensation payable in the case is computed/revised as below: 1. Age of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal 38 years 2. Multiplier as applied by the Tribunal 15 3. Annual Income including future prospects (in Rs.) as determined by the Tribunal 5,37,920 4. 1/4th deduction of the deceased's own expenses 1,34,480 5. Annual loss of dependency income 4,03,440 6. Loss of dependency income (4,03,440 X 15) 60,51,600 7. Funeral (in rupees) as awarded by the Tribunal 20,000 8. Loss of estate (in rupees) as awarded by the Tribunal 20,000 9. Loss of consortium (44,000 X 4) as awarded by the Tribunal 1,76,000/- 10. Total amount (in Rs.) 62,67,660 11. Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal 55,95,195 12. Amount of enhancement 6,72,465 10. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as stated above. It shall be apportioned on the same terms as determined by the learned Tribunal. The rate of 7% interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is maintained. Enhanced amount of compensation, after adjustment of payment already made, if any, shall be paid within six months. 11. The appeal stands thus partly allowed.