JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): Appeal is admitted for hearing. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that looking to only two questions raised in the case, it can be disposed of at this stage only. Keeping in view this prayer, this matter has been taken up for final hearing today. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Only two grounds have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants in this case for allowing this appeal by enhancing the compensation. These are:- (a) that proved age of the deceased Amar Singh at the time of accident is 41 years; and (b) multiplier 8 needs to be enhanced again keeping in view the proved age of the deceased with interest from the date of filing of claim petition and not from the date of award. 3. Though an attempt was made, on behalf of the respondents, by the learned Counsel to turn down both these pleas and consequently to dismiss this appeal, however, they were not able to satisfy the Court on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced in this behalf to accept their plea. 4. Vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01-1148 being owned by respondent No. 2, and being insured with respondent No. 1-Insurance Company is not in dispute. Similarly, no leave of the Tribunal was sought to contest the claim of the appellants as per provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is being mentioned/I because in the absence of permission, defences of respondent No. 1-1 Insurance Company are limited as contained in section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also not in dispute that appellant No. 1 is the widow, 2 to 5 are his children, and 6 is the mother of deceased Amar Singh. He was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at I the time of accident on 30.12.2000 when above vehicle met with accident while it was on way from Manali to Kelong. Both, driver as well as Amar Singh sustained fatal injuries in the accident. 5. In the aforesaid background, compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed by the appellants. Learned Tribunal below, vide improvement award, granted a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- with 9%. interest from the date of award till its realization. This amount has been apportioned whereby allowing appellant No. 1 -widow Rs. 2,00,000/-, appellant No. 6-mother Rs. 5. In the aforesaid background, compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed by the appellants. Learned Tribunal below, vide improvement award, granted a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- with 9%. interest from the date of award till its realization. This amount has been apportioned whereby allowing appellant No. 1 -widow Rs. 2,00,000/-, appellant No. 6-mother Rs. 34,000/- whereas remaining sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be shared equally by the appellants No. 1 to 5. 6. Looking to the statement of PW-2 Rewal Singh. Pay Bill Assistant in the office of Superintendent of Police, Shimla, it is clear that monthly wage of deceased was Rs. 8,962/-. Photostat copy of last pay certificate is Ex. PA. Date of birth of the deceased is 12.6.1960. This is also established as per Photostat copy of date of birth certificate Ex. PC, issued by the Government Senior Secondary School, Samaila. District Mandi, HP. 7. In deciding this appeal, statement of this witness is enough so far monthly wage of deceased is concerned. Another fact that needs to be noted from the statement of PW-1 Sandesh Kumari-widow of deceased is, that he (deceased) used to get 13 months salary every year as a police employee. There is no cross-examination directed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 2, on this aspect. Thus, it had remained unchallenged. 8. Rounding off monthly wage of deceased to Rs. 9,000/- and allowing the multiplier method, which is by now well known and well accepted while assessing compensation in the cases of present nature, monthly dependence of the appellants on the deceased works out to Rs. 7,200/- and for 13 months it comes to Rs. 93,600/-. Accordingly, findings recorded by the learned Tribunal below in this behalf need to be modified. Ordered accordingly. 9. Deceased was less than 41 years of age on the date of accident as per Ex.PC. Keeping in view the uncertainties of life in view and other relevant factors, it is felt that multiplier of 8 adopted by the learned Tribunal below is ridiculously low. Looking to the decision in the case of UP. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, JT 1996(5) SC 356, it is felt that in the present case at least multiplier of 14 should have been applied by the Tribunal below. Thus, it fell into error in applying multiplier of 8. Looking to the decision in the case of UP. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others, JT 1996(5) SC 356, it is felt that in the present case at least multiplier of 14 should have been applied by the Tribunal below. Thus, it fell into error in applying multiplier of 8. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 was not in a position to satisfy the Court as to why the lesser multiplier by the Tribunal be upheld. Though he persisted with vehemence that impugned award calls for no interference in this appeal. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected and is devoid of merit in the face of decision of Honble Supreme Court (supra), as well as in view of the evidence on record. 10. Over and above the amount of compensation as may be assessed in this appeal, appellant No. 1-widow, will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,100/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/-on account of loss to estate as well as funeral expenses. 11. Total amount payable by the respondents to appellants in this case thus comes to Rs. 7200 x 13 = 93,600 x 14 = 13,10,400 + Rs. 14,100/- + Rs. 5000/- = Rs. 13,30,000/-. This sum of Rs. 13,30,000/-will also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 13.8.2001 till deposit/payment (whichever is earlier). Any amount awarded/paid either under "no fault liability" or in terms of impugned award, shall be deducted out of this amount. Regarding, apportionment, it is ordered that mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Sunehru Devi will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,10,400/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,05,500/- will be equally shared by the appellants No. 1 to 5. Sum of Rs.-44,100 awarded on account of loss consortium will be exclusively payable to Sandesh Kumari-appellant No. 1. All the appellants will also be entitled to proportionate interest on this amount in terms of this judgment. Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2001, decided on 16.7.2003, in case titled as Sandesh Kumari and others v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, stands modified in these terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in M.A.C. Case No. 82 of 2001, decided on 16.7.2003, in case titled as Sandesh Kumari and others v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, stands modified in these terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Since insurance of the vehicle with respondent No. 1 is not in dispute, it is held that said respondent No. 1 shall be liable to deposit the awarded amount in terms of this judgment by or before 31.1.2005 in the Registry of this Court. No costs.