JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) - The present appeal as arise out of award dated 17.1.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 138-S/2 of 2005/2004 titled as Shanta and others v. B.S. Chauhan and others. 2.FAO No. 72 of 2007 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and FAO No. 132 of 2007, has been filed by the United India Insurance Company, assailing the award on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the liability on the Insurance Company. 3.On 4.7.2004 Bus bearing No. HP-51-3393, owned by Shri B.S. Chauhan, met with an accident near village Kanog on Kufri-Chial Road, District Shimla, H.P. An FIR was registered against the conductor of the Bus Shri Man Singh, who is alleged to have driven the vehicle at the time of accident. Shri Sanjay alias Sanjeev was in fact the driver of the Bus. In the said accident, various passengers received injuries and some of them succumbed to the same and died. Various claim petitions were filed by the passengers before the different Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State. 4.The present appeals arise out of the Claim Petition filed by the Smt. Shanta and others, legal heirs of deceased Shri Dharam Singh, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 10.52 lacs on account of death of Shri Dharam Singh, in the said accident. Deceased Dharam Singh was survived by his widow and two minor children (one daughter and one son). The deceased an agriculturist and a muleteer, was having an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 5.The driver remained ex parte and the owner filed its response stating that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was being driven by its driver Shri Sanjeev, who was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the name of Shri Man Singh as driver of the ill-fated Bus was wrongly mentioned in the FIR. 6.While admitting the fact that the vehicle was insured, the Insurance Company in its reply, however, took up the defence that since Man Singh, who was not possessing any effective and valid driving licence was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured as terms and conditions of the policy stood breached. 7.Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :- “1. Whether Sanjay drove vehicle No. HP-51/3393 rashly and negligently on 4.7.2004 ? OPP 2. Where there was collusion between petitioners and the respondents No. 1 and 2 and if so, its effect ? OPR 3. Whether there was no valid and effective driving licence with Man Singh, if so its effect ? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 5. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what extent and from whom ? OPP 6. Relief. 8.The parties were afforded adequate opportunities of leading their evidence and after appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal while deciding issues No. 3, held that at the time of accident Shri Sanjay alias Sanjeev, was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which was the cause of the accident. Shri Dharam Singh, who was travelling in the Bus died as a result of the said accident. 9.On issue No.5, dealing with compensation payable to the claimants, relying upon the copy of revenue record (Jamabandi) (Ext.A-4/5) the Tribunal held that deceased, aged 35 years, was an agriculturist and in the absence of any cogent and corroborative evidence, the Tribunal took his monthly loss of income to be Rs. 3000/- and by applying the multiplier of ‘13’ determined the compensation as loss of income to be Rs. 4,68,000.00. In addition, the following compensation was also awarded :- Loss of consortiumRs. 10,000.00 Loss of estateRs. 5,000.00 Funeral chargesRs. 5,000.00 10.Thus the total compensation of Rs. 4,88,000.00 was awarded. Interest at the rate of 6% was also awarded. 11.The vehicle being insured, the liability was fastened upon the Insurance Company. 12.Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the claimant has argued that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the income of the deceased from various sources which ought to have been clubbed together for determining the compensation. 4,88,000.00 was awarded. Interest at the rate of 6% was also awarded. 11.The vehicle being insured, the liability was fastened upon the Insurance Company. 12.Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the claimant has argued that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the income of the deceased from various sources which ought to have been clubbed together for determining the compensation. In any event, the multiplier applied was much on the lower side and further also the compensation towards the head of non-pecuniary damages ought to be enhanced. 13.Per contra, Mr. G.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, while justifying the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vehemently argued that the liability to pay the same stands wrongly fastened upon the Insurance Company for the reason that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that at the time of the accident the vehicle in question was being driven by Shri Sanjay and not Shri Man Singh. 14.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 15.Learned Counsel for the owner has supported the award for the reasons set out therein and the driver, who was ex parte before the Tribunal also chose not to appear in the present proceedings. 16.There is no dispute that on the ill-fated day the deceased was travelling in the bus and died in the accident in question. The entitlement of the claimant and their age is also not in dispute. In support of their claim, claimant No. 1 Smt. Shanta examined herself as PW-1, HC Subhash Chand (PW-2), Shri Ajeet Singh (PW-3),Sh. Hira Lal (PW-4) and Smt. Maina Devi (PW-5). In rebuttal, the respondent owner examined himself as RW-1. The Insurance Company examined its witness Shri Khem Chand as RW-2. 17.Shri Sanjay was driving the bus at the time of the accident is evident from the record. PW-5 who was also travelling in the ill-fated bus at the time of accident has deposed that the bus was being driven by Shri Sanjay. She has specifically denied the suggestion that it was Man Singh, who was driving the bus in question. RW-1 has also deposed that Shri Sanjeev, also known as Sanjay employed by him driving the bus on the date of the accident. He denied that it was Man Singh, who was driving the bus in question. She has specifically denied the suggestion that it was Man Singh, who was driving the bus in question. RW-1 has also deposed that Shri Sanjeev, also known as Sanjay employed by him driving the bus on the date of the accident. He denied that it was Man Singh, who was driving the bus in question. 18.In the other appeals arising out of the same accident being FAO No. 527 of 2007 and 170 of 2008, this Court while examining the statement of said Man Singh (the alleged driver) and Investigating Officer who investigated the FIR has already held that it was Sanjeev Kumar, who was driving the vehicle. It was observed as under :- “That Shri Sanjay was driving the Bus at the time of accident is evident from the record. PW-1 categorically deposed that the accident occurred as respondent No. 2 (Shri Sanjay) lost control and the bus fell down the road. Importantly, he has not been cross-examined on this point either by the owner or the Insurance Company. RW-1 has corroborated his version and has further stated that he had employed driver Sanjay alias Sanjeev Kumar, who was possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He denied that Man Singh was driving the vehicle. Importantly, Man Singh (RW-6) alleged to have driven the vehicle at the time of accident, as a witness of the Insurer deposed that his name was wrongly mentioned in the FIR and it was Sanjeev Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. In any event, he possessed a driving licence (HTV) and was entitled to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. RW-7 is the Investigating Officer, who carried out the investigation pursuant to the registration of the FIR. Even though in his examination-in-chief he has deposed that during investigation he found that the vehicle was being driven by Man Singh, but, however, in his cross-examination he clarified that he did not remember as to who had stated this fact to him. He further deposed that during investigation he found that the owner had employed Man Singh as a Conductor and Sanjeev Kumar as driver. Both Sanjeev Kumar and Man Singh were challaned, which was still pending in the Court of JMIC, Shimla. He further deposed that during investigation he found that the owner had employed Man Singh as a Conductor and Sanjeev Kumar as driver. Both Sanjeev Kumar and Man Singh were challaned, which was still pending in the Court of JMIC, Shimla. He also admitted that both Man Singh and Sanjeev Kumar were having valid licences and were entitled to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle. This is the only evidence to this effect. Thus it is evident that it was Sanjeev Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. FIr mentioning the name of Man Singh to have driven the vehicle was registered on the claimant of one Shri Nitya Nand. Importantly, this witness was not examined by the Insurance Company. Statement of RW-7, conclusively does not establish Man Singh to have driven the vehicle. From the unrebutted testimony of PW-1, which is duly corroborated and supported by Rw-1, I see no reason to differ with the findings returned by the that it was Sanjay alias Sanjeev Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is not as though the prosecution was launched only against Man Singh. RW-7 has stated that challan is pending against both Man Singh and Sanjeev Kumar. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that even Man Singh was possessing a valid driving licence and thus competent to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly considered the material on record, particularly, the statement of RW-4 and RW-6 to hold that the driving licence of Man Singh was valid issued by the authorities.” 19.This Court in New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Satya Parkash Thakuar and others, 2007 ACJ 714, has held that where the owner had proved that he had engaged a person, possessing a valid licence, to drive the vehicle the onus to prove that another person not holding a valid driving licence was driving the vehicle with the knowledge of the owner or on account of some carelessness on the owner’s part that person not holding the licence came to drive the vehicle was heavy on the Insurer. In the present case, no such burden was discharge. 20.From the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is evident that the deceased died in the accident. In the present case, no such burden was discharge. 20.From the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is evident that the deceased died in the accident. 21.PW-1 has deposed that her husband sowed vegetables on 20-025 Bighas of irrigated land owned by him and earned an income of approximately Rs. 1 lac per annum. Additionally, he was a mueteer and used to earn income of about 40 to 45,000/- per annum from the said source. After the death of her husband, she has to engage labourers and a muleteer by paying daily wages of Rs. 80/- and Rs. 100/- to carry out the work in the fields and drive the mules. PW-3 has supported her version. It is true that her statement is not supported by any proof of any documentary evidence but it has come in her evidence that her husband was doing supervisory work and engaging the labourers for carry out the works in the fields. However, her statement with regard to the income cannot be totally belied for the reason that the revenue record shows the land to be Ghasni (uncultivable). 22.In V. Subbulakshmi and others v. S. Lakshmi and another, AIR 2008 SC 1256, the Apex court has held that where there is no proof of income some guess work is inevitable. 23.The deceased undisputedly owned land which was cultivated by him. He was not a labourer. Work of a muleteer is of skilled nature. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in the year 2004 even an unskilled labourer was entitled to daily wages at the rate of Rs. 75/- per day. 24.This Court in National Insurance Company v. Smt. Sharda Devi and others, FAO No. 392 of 2001, decided on 24.10.2005, while determining the value of supervisory services in a case where the corpus from which the income is derived is intact has held that a person working as a Manager of an orchard himself does business and cannot be replaced by giving the job to other person. A farmer or an orchardist remains in his orchard throughout the day and he is not like a paid employee who only works for some particular hours in a day. An employee cannot put in that amount of effort as the owner himself does. A farmer or an orchardist remains in his orchard throughout the day and he is not like a paid employee who only works for some particular hours in a day. An employee cannot put in that amount of effort as the owner himself does. The said view was taken by referring to and relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in H.R.T.C. v. Puni Devi, 1993 ACJ 998. 25.Considering the fact that deceased was man of means, his income cannot be determined to be a daily wager as has been done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, without any justifiable reason has erred in not taking into account incomes from different sources while determining the total loss. In the present case the loss of income, in my view, can be assessed to be Rs. 5000/- per month. The same is just fair and reasonable. In my view, the income needs to be enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. The income of the deceased was solely not from agricultural source. He was not devoting full time for agricultural activity as he was also working as a muleteer. Therefore, deduction is required to be carried out. After decuting 1/3rd the amount towards future loss of income comes out to be Rs. 3334/- (Rs. 5000 - Rs. 1666). 26.On question of multiplier, it is to be noticed that as on the date of accident, deceased was 35 years of age and was survived by a young widow of 28 years and two minor children. 27.The Apex Court in Savita Sharma and others v. Union of India/Chandigarh Administration and another, 2008 ACJ 2032, while dealing with a case of an Ayurvedic doctor, aged 53 years, where the High Court had reduced the multiplier applied by the Tribunal from ‘11’ to ‘8’, held that when a rough and ready reference is already provided in the 2nd schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, normally, it should be applied unless there are compelling reasons to take a different view in the matter. The Apex Court reversed the view taken by the High Court and upheld the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal. 28.In Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and others, 2008 ACJ 9, the Apex Court where a person aged 29 years suffered 49% permanent disability, the Apex court applied the multiplier of ‘18’ and in New India Assurance Co. The Apex Court reversed the view taken by the High Court and upheld the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal. 28.In Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and others, 2008 ACJ 9, the Apex Court where a person aged 29 years suffered 49% permanent disability, the Apex court applied the multiplier of ‘18’ and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and another, 2005(10) SCC 720, the Apex Court while dealing with a case of an injured claimant, aged 37 years applied the multiplier of ‘18’. 29.Mr. G.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has brought to my notice judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Kalpana and others, 2007(1) ACC 356 (SC) and also Kanhaiyalal Kataria and others v. Mukul Chaturvedi and others, 2007 ACJ 1972, to support his contention that compensation awarded is just and fair and need not be enhanced. In Kalpana (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a case of taxi driver, who died in an accident at the age of 33 years. His monthly income claimed to be Rs. 8000/- but was assessed to be Rs. 3000/- per month and multiplier of ‘13’ was applied. 30.It is true that the Apex Court has applied a multiplier of ‘13’ in Kalpana (supra) and ‘17’ in Kanhaiyalal Kataria (supra), but keeping in view the subsequent decisions referred to hereinabove and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, multiplier needs to be enhanced. 31.Keeping in view the age of the deceased and age of the legal heirs, in my view adopting a multiplier of ‘17’ would be just and fair. Thus, by applying the multiplier of ‘17’, the claimants entitlement to compensation would be Rs. 334 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 6,80,136/-. 32.In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1995 ACJ 366, Apex Court has laid down the following criteria for awarding the compensation :- “pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stressing life.” 33.In Rashila Ram Kaushal v. Ranjit Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1891 : 2004(2) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) 457 this court while dealing with a case of teacher, who suffered permanent disability of 20% awarded Rs. 37,000/- under the head of permanent disability. The widow aged 28 years and minor children have been deprived of love and affection of their father. In my view instead of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards consortium, loss of estate, a consolidated sum of Rs. 1 lac is awarded under all heads of non-pecuniary damages. This is in addition to Rs. 5000/- awarded towards funeral charges. 34.The Tribunal awarded interest @ 6%. There is no evidence on record to prove the prevailing rate of interest at which the Nationalised Bank are accepting deposits. However, in other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7-1/2% per annum, which has been upheld by this Court in FAOs No. 527 of 2007 and 170 of 2008. Accordingly, the rate of interest is enhanced from 6% to 7-1/2% per annum. 35.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The claimants are entitled to the following amount of compensation alongwith interest @ 7-1/2% per annum, as apportioned by the Tribunal - Loss of income:Rs. 6,80,136.00 Loss of consortium loss of estate and all other heads of non-pecuniary damagesRs. 1,00,000.00 Funeral chargesRs. 5,000.00 TotalRs. 7,85,136.00 However, there shall be no order as to costs. M.R.B. ———————