SURINDER GUPTA, J.

1. This is appeal by claimants Kamla and Others seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (later referred to as the Tribunal) vide award dated 19.10.2007, for the death of Om Parkash, husband of claimant-appellant No. 1 Kamla and father of claimants-appellants no. 2 to 5, in a motor vehicle accident with Jeep bearing registration No. DL-4CC-3740 (later referred to as the offending vehicle).

2. Case of claimants, in brief, is that on 5.2.2004, Om Parkash was going to Nathusari Chopta from Bhattu in the offending vehicle. On the way, after reaching near Pilimandori minor on Bhattu Nathusari Chopta road, driver of the offending vehicle, namely: Surender Kumar respondent no. 1 raised the speed of Jeep and lost control over the steering. The Jeep got overturned as a result of which Om Parkash and Chhotu Ram passengers in that Jeep sustained multiple grievous injuries and died at the spot while other occupants of Jeep sustained injuries.

3. In reply filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, it was denied that the accident was caused by respondent no. 1 due to his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

4. On appraisal of evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.

5. While computing the amount of compensation payable for the death of Om Parkash, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income as Rs. 2500/- from which deduction of 1/3rd was made towards personal expenses of the deceased and on applying the multiplier of 10, amount of dependency was calculated as Rs. 1,99,920/- to which Rs. 2000/- was added towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium for respondent no. 1 and total compensation of Rs. 2,06,920/- was allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs. 5000/- per month. However, the Tribunal did not accept the plea of claimants as they could not produce any jamabandi, khasra girdawari in support of their contention. He has argued that the accident took place in the year 2004 and even if, income of the deceased is taken that of a daily wager, the same could be taken as Rs. 3500/- per month. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 10 while computing the amount of dependency instead of 13 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The deduction towards personal expenses has also been wrongly made as 1/3rd of his income instead of 1/4th of his income. The compensation allowed for the loss of consortium and funeral expenses are also on lower side and no compensation was allowed for the loss of love and affection, care and guidance for the children.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 Insurance Company has argued that in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased, the Tribunal has committed no error of law while assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 2500/- per month. Age of the deceased was mentioned as 50 years by claimants and in the postmortem report (Ex. P2) age of the deceased was described as more than 50 years, as such, multiplier is to be taken as applicable to the victim in the age group of 51 to 55 years.

8. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier, as per the age group are discussed. Multiplier applicable to age group of 45 to 50 is 13.

9. It is clear from perusal of above observations that for the person of the age of 50, who had not reached the age of 51, the multiplier applicable is of the age group of 46 to 50 and not of 51 to 55, as such, the Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 10 while calculating amount of dependency.

10. In view