Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th November, 1996 and award dated 12th December, 1996 passed by Sri Kamla Prasad, 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Purnea, in Claim Case No. 13 of 1993. 2. The relevant facts are that the son of claimant Radha Devi (respondent no.2) died in a Motor accident which occurred on 21st October, 1991 by vehicle No. BHK 4808. The concerned vehicle was admittedly insured with the appellant. However, on the date of occurrence, the ownership of the vehicle in question was transferred to O.P. No. 2 of this appeal, namely, Rahul Kumar Verma. 3. It was submitted by the appellants lawyer that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question stood registered under the ownership of one Kapildeo Singh and his insurance policy was valid from 1st December, 1990 to 20th November, 1991, but this owner was not made a party to the case. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000, and by reducing this amount by Rs. 25,000/- which was the amount of interim compensation Rs. 85,000/- was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company with interest @ 12 per cent. 4. So far non-impleading the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time is concerned, I am of the opinion that, of course, he should have been impleaded, but now remanding the case back to the lower court would unnecessarily cause hardship to the claimant. Since the vehilce was already insured, I am of the opinion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. However, the compensation amount itself has been challenged on the ground that the Tribunal adopted an illegal procedure in calculating the compensation amount; insofar as it used the multiplier 18 to the annual income of the deceased. In this connection, the appellants lawyer referred to the age of Radha Devi as 50 years, as mentioned in the impugned judgment. However, on perusal of evidence of Radha Devi (A.W. 1), who was examined on 24th July, 1994, it transpires that she gave her age as 46 years. Age of the deceased or the claimant whichever is higher is to be taken as the basis for calculating the compensation amount. However, on perusal of evidence of Radha Devi (A.W. 1), who was examined on 24th July, 1994, it transpires that she gave her age as 46 years. Age of the deceased or the claimant whichever is higher is to be taken as the basis for calculating the compensation amount. In the instant case, the claimant who was the mother of the deceased, was aged about 46 years, so the normal multiplier, as per Schedule-II annexed to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 would be13. Now the question is what was the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has assessed his income as a daily labourer @ Rs. 25/- per day. So the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 750/-, amounting to an annual income of Rs. 9,000/-. Out of this Rs. 9,000/-, 1/3rd would go towards his personal expenses. The remaining amount would be Rs. 6,000/- which would be multiplicand, i.e., the dependency amount. If this amount is multiplied by 13, it would come to Rs. 78,000/-. Rs. 2,000/- may be added towards funeral expenses. So the amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 80,000/-. Rs. 25,000/- has already been paid as interim compensation. So the remaining amount of Rs. 55,000/- is directed to be paid by the Insurance Company, of course, with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application in the lower court, till realisation. 5. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, as stated above.