JUDGMENT Nirmal Yadav, J. - Vide this common judgment all the aforementioned appeals/cross appeals shall stand disposed of as they arise out of the one accident and involve common questions of fact and law. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 25.11.1990 Sham Singh Sandhu along with his wife Harbans Kaur and grandson Master Raj Karan was going from Ludhiana to Chandigarh in Maruti car bearing registration No. DAJ 1956. The said car was being given by Ashwani Kumar. It is pleaded that Ashwani Kumar was driving the car carefully on the correct side of the road. When he had just crossed Village Ucha Jatana, a bus belonging to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Chandigarh, bearing registration No. PJG-7515 came from the opposite side. The bus was driven by Raj Kumar at a very fast speed and in a very rash and negligent manner. The driver of the offending vehicle brought it on the wrong side and struck against the Maruti car. As a result of the accident, the car was totally smashed and the occupants of the car, namely, Sham Singh Sandhu, Harbans Kaur, Master Raj Karan and Ashwani Kumar sustained injuries. Harbans Kaur and Ashwani Kumar died at the spot. Sham Singh Sandhu and his grandson Master Raj Karan were removed to Civil Hospital, Samrala with the assistance of the villagers and eye-witnesses. However, later on, they succumbed to the injuries sustained by them in the accident. The accident was witnessed by Surinder Kumar s/o Mohan Lal and Ravinder Singh son of Harparkash Singh. 3. The claim petitions filed by claimants were contested by Raj Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as well as the National Insurance Company with whom the offending vehicle was insured. The defence of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation was struck off as it failed to file its written statement and, as such, the claim petitions were contested by Raj Kumar, driver of offending vehicle and National Insurance Company. Raj Kumar, driver denied the allegation that the accident was caused on account of his negligence. According to him, the bus in question was not at all involved in the accident. The insurance company took legal objections, such as, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and driver of the bus did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident. According to him, the bus in question was not at all involved in the accident. The insurance company took legal objections, such as, the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and driver of the bus did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident. The issues framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties and objections filed by the respondents were consolidated and decided vide order dated 5.4.1994 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala. 4. Against the aforesaid award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the present appeals have been filed. On the one hand, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and driver of the offending vehicle have pleaded the compensation awarded to be exorbitant, while on the other hand, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation. Initially, F.A.O. Nos. 2299, 2300, 2301 and 2302 of 1994 were jointly filed on behalf of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, National Insurance Company and driver of the offending vehicle. However, later on, an application moved by the National Insurance Company to transpose it as respondent was allowed vide order dated 1.11.2006. 5. On the basis of negligence, learned counsel for the appellants argued that since the accident was on account of head-on collusion, therefore, driver of the Maruti car was also negligent in causing the accident. Learned counsel further argued that the alleged witnesses are chance witnesses. After going through the evidence on record, it is seen that the accident was witnessed by Ravinder Singh and Surinder Kumar. Both Ravinder Singh and Surinder Kumar were travelling in their own car. The Maruti car in which the deceased were travelling, was going ahead of them. Both of them have categorically stated that the bus of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation was coming from the opposite side at a very fast speed and rammed against the car of Sham Singh Sandhu. The driver of the bus was negligent and, after causing the accident, he fled away from the spot. Ravinder Singh, witness removed both the injured to the hospital and also lodged the FIR with regard to the accident. 6. On the other hand, the driver of the bus has totally denied having caused the accident. According to him, the bus in question was not at all involved in the accident. Ravinder Singh, witness removed both the injured to the hospital and also lodged the FIR with regard to the accident. 6. On the other hand, the driver of the bus has totally denied having caused the accident. According to him, the bus in question was not at all involved in the accident. However, during the course of trial, he admitted the accident having been caused between his vehicle and the Maruti car, but tried to shift the liability on the driver of the Maruti car. Except his own statement, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of two independent witnesses. Accordingly, the findings of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence do not call for any interference and the same are upheld. F.A.O. No. 2299 of 1994 & F.A.O. No. 364 of 1995 : F.A.O. No. 2299 of 1994 filed by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and driver of the offending vehicle is directed against the award passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition of Smt. Veena Sylvester, mother of Ashwani Kumar, who was driving the Maruti car of Sham Singh Sandhu, whereas, F.A.O. No. 364 of 1995 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 7. Claimant-Smt. Veena Sylvester claimed that her son was working as driver with Sham Singh Sandhu. He was unmarried and 20 years of age. According to her, the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2000/-, out of which, he was handing over Rs. 1000/- to his mother i.e. claimant-Smt. Veena Sylvester. Bhupinderpal Singh, who appeared as AW-4 proved that Ashwani Kumar was working with his father, who used to give Rs. 2000/- per month as salary to the deceased. He produced the record with regard to disbursement of salary to Ashwani Kumar. There is no rebuttal to the statements of Bhupender Pal Singh and Smt. Veena Sylvester, mother of the deceased Ashwani Kumar. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that driver Ashwani Kumar, son of the claimant, was also negligent in driving the Maruti car, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- is on higher side. It is argued, keeping in view the negligence of the driver of Maruti car, the amount of compensation that awarded in this claim petition be reasonably reduced. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is on higher side. It is argued, keeping in view the negligence of the driver of Maruti car, the amount of compensation that awarded in this claim petition be reasonably reduced. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only awarded by the Tribunal to a mother on account of death of her young son is highly inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel argued that even if the dependency of the appellant is taken to be Rs. 1000/- per month as assessed by Tribunal, the compensation would be much more than awarded by the Tribunal. It is argued that the deceased was a young man of 20 years and the claimant Smt. Veena Sylvester was totally dependent upon him as she was separated from her husband long back. Learned counsel further argued that keeping in view the age of the appellant, multiplier of at least 20 should have been applied. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has not given any reasons for awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/-. 10. In the present case, claimant-Smt. Veena Sylvester is a divorcee and was 40 years of age at the time of accident. There was no rebuttal to her statement that she was fully dependant on the earnings of her deceased son. It is also not disputed that the deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month and was handing over Rs. 1000/- to his mother. Keeping in view the age of the claimant, multiplier of 15 would be just and reasonable. The deceased being unmarried young man of 20 years, would have certainly got married after a few years and, therefore, he would have contributed Rs. 1000/- per month to his mother atleast for 5 years and thereafter Rs. 700/- per month. After the marriage, he would have his own family to look after and on that account there was possibility of reduction in contribution. The compensation is, of course, relatable to loss of contribution and accordingly, the contribution towards the mother of the deceased would have been reduced to 1/3th. The quantum of compensation is, therefore, assessed at Rs. 1,44,000/- [Rs. 1000 x 12 x 5 = 60000 + Rs. 700 x 12 x 1 = 84000/-]. The compensation is, of course, relatable to loss of contribution and accordingly, the contribution towards the mother of the deceased would have been reduced to 1/3th. The quantum of compensation is, therefore, assessed at Rs. 1,44,000/- [Rs. 1000 x 12 x 5 = 60000 + Rs. 700 x 12 x 1 = 84000/-]. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. FAO No. 2300 of 2004 : This appeal arises out of the award passed in the claim petition filed by the Legal Representatives of deceased Sham Singh, i.e., his first wife Ram Piari; major sons Bhupinder Pal Singh, Balvinder Singh and Devinder Singh; unmarried daughters, Sukhvinder Kaur and Parminder Kaur; married daughter Surinder Kaur; and minor sons Sarabjit Singh and Paramjit Singh. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Bhupinder Pal Singh, Balvinder Singh, Devinder Singh and Surinder Kaur, claimants were not dependant on the income of the deceased and, therefore, the claim petition qua these claimants was dismissed whereas the first wife Ram Piari, unmarried daughters-Sukvinder Kaur and Parminder Kaur; and minor sons-Sarabjit Singh and Paramjit Singh were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,60,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition till recovery. The aforesaid amount of compensation was ordered to be shared by the claimants as per apportionment made in para 27 of the award. 11. As per the evidence on record, deceased-Sham Singh Sandhu was 50 years of age at the time of his death. He owned a petrol pump situated at Samrala Bye- pass Chowk. He was partner of M/s Mandeep Gas Service. He was also Director of M/s Model Line Colonisers and Managing Director of M/s S.I. Bricks and Builders. He was also Director of M/s Modern Planners Pvt. Limited. He was earning about Rs. 25,000/- per month. It has also come on record that he was an influential and affluent person and, therefore, he could afford two wives. The claimants also produced the income tax assessment order for the year 1989-90, Exhibit A-2, according to which, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 27,480/- per month. He was earning about Rs. 25,000/- per month. It has also come on record that he was an influential and affluent person and, therefore, he could afford two wives. The claimants also produced the income tax assessment order for the year 1989-90, Exhibit A-2, according to which, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 27,480/- per month. The assessment order for the year 1990-91, Exhibit A-3, relates to income from M/s Mandeep Gas Service only, and his annual income has been assessed at Rs. 44,385/-. He was mortgagee of land measuring 63 kanals 11 marlas at Mandi Gobindgarh and also owned some land at village Jodhiwal. The learned Tribunal, therefore, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month. After deducting the personal expenses, dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 7,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 84,000/- per annum. Taking into consideration postmortem report, Exhibit A-7, age of Sham Singh Sandhu was taken as 50 years at the time of his death and after applying multiplier of 15, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 12,60,000/-. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants have challenged the award on the ground that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal on account of death of Sham Singh Sandhu is exorbitant and unreasonable. Learned counsel argued that as per statement of AW4-Bhupinder Pal Singh, it can well be inferred that the age of the deceased was more than 50 years at the time of the accident. Learned counsel referred to the cross-examination of Bhupinder Pal Singh wherein it has been stated that Sham Singh Sandhu performed second marriage with Harbans Kaur in the year 1974-75 at the age of 40. He further stated that Sarabjit Singh, claimant is the eldest child of the deceased from Harbans Kaur and he was about 17/18 years old on the date of deposition i.e. 16.9.1993. The accident took place in the year 1990 and, therefore, as per simple calculation, the deceased must be 55/56 years of age at the time of his death. The learned counsel further pointed out that Bhupinder Pal Singh stated his age to be 37 years as on 16.9.1993. The accident took place in the year 1990 and, therefore, as per simple calculation, the deceased must be 55/56 years of age at the time of his death. The learned counsel further pointed out that Bhupinder Pal Singh stated his age to be 37 years as on 16.9.1993. It shows that he must have been born in 1956 and at that time the deceased Sham Singh Sandhu must be at least 21 years of age and, therefore, it can well be inferred that deceased Sham Singh Sandhu was more than 56 years of age at the time of his death. It is argued that multiplier of 15 applied by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. At the age of 56 years, at the most, multiplier of 9 should have been applied. In support, the learned counsel referred to a judgment of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur and others, (1993-3) The Punjab Law Reporter 592, wherein multiplier of 7 was applied in a case where the deceased was 51 years of age. He further relied on Champa Devi and others v. Ram Sarup and others, (1994-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 63 wherein multiplier of 10 was applied in the case of a working lecturer having died at the age of 50. Similarly, in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shero Devi v. Vijay Kumar, 1995 PLR 541, multiplier of 9 was applied in the case of death of a 50 years old person. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is imaginary and without any basis. There is no evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. As regard the running businesses and landed property, the deceased has left the same for the benefit of his legal representatives and, therefore, the claimants have not suffered any loss in the income from land and running businesses of the deceased. Moreover, there is no assessment with regard to other businesses which the deceased was allegedly running. 14. As regard the running businesses and landed property, the deceased has left the same for the benefit of his legal representatives and, therefore, the claimants have not suffered any loss in the income from land and running businesses of the deceased. Moreover, there is no assessment with regard to other businesses which the deceased was allegedly running. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants argued that deceased was 50 years of age at the time of accident and this fact is fully corroborated by the postmortem report where the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 50 years. It is further argued that Assessment Order, Exhibit A-3 is with regard to M/s Mandeep Gas Service and some agricultural land only. Learned counsel argued that it is evident from the statements of AW4-Bhupinder Pal Singh and AW5-Balwinder Singh that besides having agricultural land, the deceased was running a petrol pump in the name and style of M/s Model Line Service Station situated on the Samrala bye-pass road. He was also the Managing Director of M/s S.I. Bricks and Builders as well as Director of M/s Modern Planners Private Limited at Deepak Cinema Chowk, Ludhiana and that of M/s Modern Planners Limited at Kharar with its head office at Chandigarh. Learned counsel further argued that after the death of Sham Singh Sandhu, at least, one earning hand and Manager of the estate, who was looking after and managing the entire business, is lost resulting into loss of income to the estate of the deceased. 15. Taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record the age of the deceased can well be taken as 56 years at the time of his death. As regards the income of the deceased, the Assessment Order, Exhibit A-3 is with regard to M/s Mandeep Gas Service only. However, the deceased had income from agricultural land and other business establishments also. Therefore, the income assessed by the Tribunal is rather on the lower side. In the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant, multiplier of 9/10 have been applied in cases of death of persons having the age of 50 years and above. However, keeping in view the average normal expectancy of life in the present times, the multiplier of 15 also does not seem to be on higher side. In the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant, multiplier of 9/10 have been applied in cases of death of persons having the age of 50 years and above. However, keeping in view the average normal expectancy of life in the present times, the multiplier of 15 also does not seem to be on higher side. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the loss assessed by the Tribunal insofar it relates to awarding of compensation in the claim petition filed by Ram Piari and others. F.A.O. No. 2301 of 1994 : 16. This appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition of Harpal Kaur claiming compensation on account of death of her minor son Raj Karan, aged 4 years. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the compensation awarded is on higher side. The deceased was just 4 years old and he would have been a liability on his parents at least upto the age he would have started earning on his own. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased was a male child of the claimant. She would have certainly expected support from her son after he had attained the age of majority. Learned counsel further argued that in the case of Lata Wadhawa and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2001-3) The Punjab Law Reporter 9, the Apex Court referred to the report of Mr. Y.V. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India, wherein the compensation to be awarded in the case of children has been divided into two groups, first group between the age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between the age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been held to be payable to which a conventional figure of Rs. 25,000/- has been added. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the children of the age group of 5 to 10 years has been determined. For the children of 10 to 15 years age group, compensation of Rs. 1,57,000/- has been assessed. Accordingly, the compensation in this appeal is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Master Raj Karan. 25,000/- has been added. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the children of the age group of 5 to 10 years has been determined. For the children of 10 to 15 years age group, compensation of Rs. 1,57,000/- has been assessed. Accordingly, the compensation in this appeal is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- for the death of Master Raj Karan. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. F.A.O. No. 2302 of 1994 F.A.O. No. 67 of 1995 : 19. These appeals arise out of the award passed in the claim petition filed by claimants-Sarabjit Singh and Paramjit Singh on account of death of their mother Harbans Kaur. F.A.O. No. 2302 of 1994 has been filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and driver of offending vehicle praying for reduction in compensation whereas in F.A.O. No. 67 of 1995, the appellant-claimants pray for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO No. 2302 of 1994 argued that the compensation awarded on account of death of Harbans Kaur is excessive and without any basis. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants argued that the deceased was not only a housewife but also a Director of M/s Modern Planners Private Limited and was getting Rs. 5000/- pre month as salary. Both the claimants Paramjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh are minor. After the death of their mother Harbans Kaur, they are left at the mercy of their stepbrothers and sisters. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Apex court in Lata Wadhwas case (supra) wherein value of services rendered by a housewife was assessed at Rs. 20000/- per annum. Deceased Harbans Kaur was 38 years of age at the time of her death. He also stated that she was getting Rs. 5000/- as salary being the Director of M/s Modern Planners Private Limited. Moreover, as a housewife also, she was rendering multifarious services to the entire family. In Lata Wadhwas case the Apex Court has dealt with this issue threadbare and after due consideration observed that in case of a housewife at least Rs. 20000/- per annum should be assessed as the value of services rendered by the housewife. Moreover, as a housewife also, she was rendering multifarious services to the entire family. In Lata Wadhwas case the Apex Court has dealt with this issue threadbare and after due consideration observed that in case of a housewife at least Rs. 20000/- per annum should be assessed as the value of services rendered by the housewife. Keeping in view that the deceased was 38 years of age and claimants are minor, i.e. 14 and 16 years of age, multiplier of 6 should be applied to the dependency as assessed in Lata Wadhwas case (supra) i.e. Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Apart from that, the deceased was also getting. Rs. 5000/- as salary and, therefore, the dependency of the claimants can well be assessed at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. After applying multiplier of 6, the amount of compensation would work out to Rs. 2,40,000/-. The enhanced amount will be shared by the claimants equally. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 21. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and driver of the offending vehicle are dismissed and cross-appeals filed by the claimants are partly allowed. Appeals dismissed.