The appeal on hand is for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the LRs/dependants (hereinafter to be referred as `claimants) of one Abdul Qayoom, who died in a vehicular accident on 16-06-2002. Vide award dated 31-03-2004 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Doda (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal) they have been entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,28,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent-1 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Insurance Company), the liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. Respondent-2 is the owner of the offending vehicle who despite service through publication has not put in his appearance. 2. I have heard Mr. M. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant(s) and Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company. With their assistance I have gone through the record also. 3. Mr. Gupta at the very out set submits that since the main claim petition was filed by Nazira Begum, the widow of the deceased before the Tribunal on her behalf and on behalf of other five LRs/dependents of the deceased, the instant appeal is also filed in the same manner. 4. Mr. Gupta primarily joins issue with regard to the multiplier of 12 years adopted by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation submitting that it is on a lower side. So far as the monthly dependency is concerned, he states that it is assessed as 2200/- and he has no grievance qua the same. He fairly states that the amount of Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded for funeral expenses is also justified. 5. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Gupta submits that the deceased was of the age of 32 years at the time of accident who had left his widow, four minor children and a widow mother. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 12 years only without assigning any cogent reasons for it, whereas in the present set of circumstances the appropriate multiplier is 17 years at least. In support of his contentions, Mr. Gupta has relied upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in Kanhaiyalal Kataria vs. Mukul Chaturvedi, 2007 ACJ 1972, wherein 17 years multiplier has been adopted. Mr. In support of his contentions, Mr. Gupta has relied upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in Kanhaiyalal Kataria vs. Mukul Chaturvedi, 2007 ACJ 1972, wherein 17 years multiplier has been adopted. Mr. Gupta also relies upon a judgment of this court rendered in case titled Tahira Begum vs Gurdeep Singh and ors. (CIMA No.188/2003) decided on 11-04-2008 in which the court while relying upon Kanhaiyalal Katarias case (supra) has also applied the multiplier of 17 years where the deceased was of the age of 42 years. Mr. Gupta has placed on record the photostat copy of the certified copy of the judgment passed in the aforesaid case. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Gupta prays for enhancement of the award alongwith interest at the same rate as already awarded by the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Baldev Singh submits that the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal on all counts is absolutely justified as it has divided the entire family into units in the light of the judgment of Honble Apex Court referred to in the award itself, and, therefore, assessed the dependency. According to Mr. Singh the learned Tribunal has also rightly scaled down the multiplier of 12 years and, therefore, the amount of compensation as already awarded can be said to be just compensation which does not call for any enhancement. 8. In my view the dependency assessed by the Tribunal is not the issue debatable before me as Mr. Gupta has not shown any grievance against it. He is primarily on the multiplier adopted by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, I also assess the loss of dependency as already assessed by the Tribunal by reducing Rs.20 per month as there being a mistake in calculation. 9. What is to be seen in this case is as to whether the multiplier of 12 years as adopted by the learned Tribunal is correct or not. 10. In a recent judgment rendered by the Apex court in case titled `The Managing Director, TNSTC vs. Sripriya & ors.", 2007 (5) Supreme 301, their lordships while assessing the case of the claimants on the aspect of multiplier observed as under; "The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, If invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last." 11. In the aforesaid case their lordships while referring to their judgment rendered in G.M., Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176 and U.P.State Road Transport Corpn. V. Trilok Chand, 1996 (4) SCC 362 observed as under; "In Susamma Thomas case (supra) it was noted that the normal rate of interest was about 10% and accordingly the multiplier was worked out. As the interest rate is on the decline, the multiplier has to consequentially be raised. Therefore, instead of 16 the multiplier of 18 as was adopted in Trilok Chandras case (supra) appears to be appropriate. In fact in Trilok Chands case (supra), after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, as the former is the normal retirement age." 12. In Sripriyas case (supra), the deceased was of the age of 37 years and he had left behind his widow, a minor daughter and parents. The Honble Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 12 years. So far as the interest part is concerned, it was reduced to 7.5% P.A from 9% P.A as awarded by the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court. 13. The Honble Supreme Court applied the multiplier of 12 years. So far as the interest part is concerned, it was reduced to 7.5% P.A from 9% P.A as awarded by the Tribunal and maintained by the High Court. 13. In another latest judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in case The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Kalpana & ors, 2007 (1) Supreme 514 where the deceased was of the age of 33 years, the multiplier of 13 years was applied keeping in view the fact that the claimants were widow and minor children. In the said judgment also their lordships have also referred to their earlier view rendered in Susamma Thomass case (supra) and Trilok Chandras case (supra). 14. Following the aforesaid view and keeping in consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case on hand, especially the age of the deceased, the family size of the dependents, and their age etc., it calls for adopting the multiplier of 15 years instead of 12 years. The dependency has to be assessed now by adopting the same. The claimants have been earlier awarded Rs.3,16,800 by the Tribunal on the basis of 12 years multiplier. The compensation under this head, now payable to the claimants would now come to Rs.3,96,000/- (Rs.2200 x 12 = 26,400 x 15). This would, in fact, be the enhancement. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, however, would remain unaltered. Ordered accordingly. 15. So far as the interest part is concerned, I am conscious of the fact that the claimants have been awarded interest @ 9% from the date of petition till its realization. But I am of the view that in case the Insurance Company deposits the enhanced amount within three months from today with the Registrar Judicial of this court the rate of interest payable on the enhanced amount shall be @ 6% P.A from the date of petition and if there is any default in depositing the said amount within the stipulated period, as indicated hereinabove, in that eventuality the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the same rate of interest of 9% as already awarded by the Tribunal till the amount is realized. This cannot be said to be a penal rate of interest at all for the reason that the Tribunal itself has awarded the interest @ 9% and I am not going beyond that. This cannot be said to be a penal rate of interest at all for the reason that the Tribunal itself has awarded the interest @ 9% and I am not going beyond that. 16. Apportionment of the enhanced amount shall be made amongst the claimants in the same manner as already adopted by the learned Tribunal in its award. 17. The net result is that the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified/altered in the aforesaid terms.