JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge. The appellants were claimants in MAC Petition No. 45-NL/2 of 2002, decided by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Solan on 29.3.2004 awarding Rs.2,40,400/- compensation to the appellants alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with the direction to apportion the award amount in the manner provided in para-23 of the impugned award. The appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. The facts in brief are that Gurdeep Singh driver of bus No. HP-12-4045 at about 6.45 p.m. on 6.10.2002 was driving the bus rashly and negligently, he could not control the bus and struck against the motor cycle of Parkash Singh, who was coming from the opposite side. Parkash Singh suffered multiple injuries and died on his way to hospital. FIR No. 155 of 2002 was registered on 6.10.2002 at Police Station, Nalagarh against respondent No.2. The deceased was employed as Drawing Teacher in Education Department and was drawing about Rs.9340/- salary per month and was earning about Rs.20,000/- from agriculture. The deceased was 42 years of age at the time of accident and his death. The respondent No. 1 was the owner and respondent No. 3 was insurer of the bus at the time of accident. The appellants filed claim petition claiming Rs.15,00,000/-compensation on account of death of Parkash Singh. The appellants are the wife and children of late Parkash Singh. 3. The respondent No. 1 has contested the petition by filing reply and denied the claim of the appellants. He has, however, pleaded that bus No. HP-12-4045 was insured with respondent No. 3 for the period 21.9.2002 to 20.9.2003. It was denied that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by deceased Parkash Singh. 4. The respondent No. 2 has also contested the petition and filed the reply. It was denied that deceased was earning Rs.9340/- from salary and Rs.20,000/- from agriculture. It was pleaded that deceased himself was responsible for the accident, he was driving the motor cycle under the influence of liquor rashly and negligently. 4. The respondent No. 2 has also contested the petition and filed the reply. It was denied that deceased was earning Rs.9340/- from salary and Rs.20,000/- from agriculture. It was pleaded that deceased himself was responsible for the accident, he was driving the motor cycle under the influence of liquor rashly and negligently. The deceased struck the motor cycle with the bus when it was stopped at bus stop and the passengers were getting down from the bus. It was denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The respondent No. 2 denied the claim. 5. The respondent No. 3 has also contested the petition by filing reply in which by way of preliminary objections contract of insurance between respondent No. 1 and insurer was denied. It was pleaded that respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle in question was being driven in violation of registration certificate, route permit, fitness certificate, standard policy conditions as well as Motor Vehicles Act at the time of accident. The respondent No. 1 was not registered owner of the vehicle nor he had insurable interest in the vehicle. The petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1, 2. On merits, it was denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. The respondent No. 3 has denied the claim of the appellants. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether on 6.10.2002 at about 6.45 p.m. near Kalyanpur village on Baruna Bagheri road, Parkash Singh late husband of the petitioner No.1. Smt. Rabinder Kaur and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4 died due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPR 1 and 2. 4. Whether the driver of the bus did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as alleged? OPR-3. 5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of M.V. Act and also in the breach of the terms and conditions of the standard insurance policy as alleged? OPR-3. 6. Relief. Whether the driver of the bus did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as alleged? OPR-3. 5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of M.V. Act and also in the breach of the terms and conditions of the standard insurance policy as alleged? OPR-3. 6. Relief. In issue No. 1 it was held that it cannot be said that accident was caused due to sole negligence of respondent No.2, the contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident was to the extent of 50% and issue No. 1 was accordingly answered in affirmative. The issues No. 3, 4 and 5 were answered in negative and under issue No. 2 the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,40,400/- alongwith 9% interest to appellants, as noticed above. The respondent No. 3 was ordered to indemnify the award. The appellants have come in appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Tribunal has wrongly held that accident had taken place due to contributory negligence of the deceased. The income of the deceased was taken on the lower side so also the multiplier. The conventional amount allowed is also less. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned award nor they have filed any cross-objections in the present appeal, therefore, they have supported the impugned award. 7. The impugned award against the respondents has attained finality and therefore, the limited question involved in the appeal is the quantum of compensation. PW 2 Bishan Dass, Head Master, Govt. High School has proved salary certificate Ex. P-2 of Parkash Singh, Drawing Teacher. PW 4 Smt. Rabinder Kaur has stated that her husband was drawing salary Rs.9000-10000 per month. He was also earning Rs.20,000/- from agriculture. PW 5 Gurdhian Singh has stated that he was traveling in the bus HP-12-4045. The bus driver near Kalyanpur went to wrong side and struck against the motor cycle, which was being driven by Parkash Singh, who suffered injuries. The motor cycle was on its correct side. The bus was in high speed. He has denied the suggestion that bus was stationary at Kalyanpur bus stop. He denied that Parkash Singh struck the motor cycle against the bus. 8. The motor cycle was on its correct side. The bus was in high speed. He has denied the suggestion that bus was stationary at Kalyanpur bus stop. He denied that Parkash Singh struck the motor cycle against the bus. 8. RW 1 Gurdeep Singh has stated that on 6.10.2002, he was driving bus No. HP-12-4045 and he had parked the bus at bus-stop, Kalyanpur. The deceased Parkash Singh was driving his motor cycle, he was in the state of intoxication and hit the motor cycle with the bus which was stopped at the bus stop. Ex. P-3 is FIR, which was got registered by one Sunil Kumar. It has been stated in the FIR by the complainant that he had alighted from the bus and saw that the bus struck against the motor cycle, which was coming from the opposite site. The motor-cyclist sustained injuries. He was taken to Nalagarh hospital but he died on the way. Later on, it was revealed that motor-cyclist was Parkash Singh. The complainant has stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Gurdeep Singh. 9. The respondent No. 2 in his reply has pleaded that motor cycle struck against the stationary bus when the passengers were alighting from the bus. The respondents No. 1 and 2, except respondent No. 2 who appeared as RW 1 have not examined any person, who was traveling in the bus at the time of accident. They have not even examined the Conductor of the bus. RW 1 has given self serving statement that deceased hit the motor cycle in the stationary bus. There is no corroboration to the statement of RW 1 that deceased hit the bus when the bus was stopped at bus stop. On the contrary, the appellants have examined PW 5 Gurdhian Singh, who was traveling in the bus at the time of the accident. 10. PW 5 has stated that near Kalyanpur, the driver of the bus went wrong side of the road and struck the bus with the motor cycle. PW 5 has stated that deceased was not related to him. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the defence that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when he struck his motor cycle against the stationary bus. Ex. P-1 is the post mortem report of deceased Parkash Singh. There is nothing in Ex. PW 5 has stated that deceased was not related to him. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the defence that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when he struck his motor cycle against the stationary bus. Ex. P-1 is the post mortem report of deceased Parkash Singh. There is nothing in Ex. P-1 indicating that deceased Parkash Singh had taken liquor. In FIR Ex. P-3, it has been stated that bus struck against the motor cycle and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Gurdeep Singh. The evidence led by the appellants has clearly established that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 when he took the bus on wrong side and struck against the motor cycle which caused fatal injuries to Parkash Singh. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that accident took place due to contributory negligence of Parkash Singh to the extent of 50% does not emerge from the evidence and, therefore, same is not sustainable and is set-aside. 11. Ex.P-2 is the last pay drawn statement of Parkash Singh, which indicates that his total salary was Rs.9340/- per month. The salary statement reveals deduction of Rs.3500/- on account of GPF, Rs.30/- (21+9) on account of general insurance scheme. The amount of Rs.3500/- per month towards GPF was to come back to the deceased. In Kamla Devi and others vs. Bagat Ram Chauhan & ors. Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 938, it has been held that contribution towards GPF and GIS is loss to the estate. It is well known that amount of Rs. 21/- shown against general insurance scheme is deducted towards saving fund and Rs.9/- toward insurance fund. The saving fund is refundable and the insurance fund is not refundable. Therefore, deduction of Rs.9/- out of the total salary of Rs.9340/- was non refundable. Thus the income of the deceased on account of salary comes to Rs. 9340 -9 = 9331 per month. The Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of deceased from salary Rs.5831/- and therefore, has wrongly assessed dependency of appellants at Rs.4800/- per month. It can be safely assumed that deceased out of Rs.9331/- was spending 1/3rd amount or say Rs.3110/- on himself. Therefore, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.6221/-(9331- 3110). As per Ex. The Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of deceased from salary Rs.5831/- and therefore, has wrongly assessed dependency of appellants at Rs.4800/- per month. It can be safely assumed that deceased out of Rs.9331/- was spending 1/3rd amount or say Rs.3110/- on himself. Therefore, the dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.6221/-(9331- 3110). As per Ex. P-4 Matriculation Examination Certificate of the deceased the date of birth of the deceased was 10.10.1959, hence, on the date of accident the deceased was about 43 years of age. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Jashuben and others (2008) 4 SCC 162, the deceased was 35 years and the multiplier of 13 was applied, similarly in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala and others (2006) 6 SCC 249, the .deceased was around 36 years and multiplier of 13 was applied. In the present case, the deceased was 43 years of age at the time of accident and death, therefore, in my opinion 10 is the appropriate multiplier. Thus amount of compensation comes to Rs.6221 x 12 x 10 = Rs. 7,46,520/-. The appellants are also entitled to Rs.10,000/- on account of conventional amounts. Therefore, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.7,46,520 + 10,000 = Rs.7,56, 520/-. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in assessing the compensation. 12. No other point was urged. 13. The result of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, award dated 29.3.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Solan in MAC Petition No. 45-NL/2 of 2002 is modified and an award of Rs.7,56,520/- is passed in favour of the appellants and against the respondents jointly and severally. Out of the award amount, the share of each appellant shall be as under:- Appellant No. 1 Smt. Rabinder Kaur Rs. 3,06,476/- Appellant No. 2 Ms. Gurvinder Kaur Rs. 1,50,000/- Appellant No. 3 Gurpartik Singh Rs. 1,50,000/- Appellant No. 4 Gurnavjot Singh Rs. 1,50,000/- On the award amount, the appellants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization as per their shares. The bus was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, whole of the award amount alongwith interest shall be paid by respondent No.3 to appellants. The award includes any amount determined or paid to appellants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No costs.