Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Both the appeals have been filed against the award dated 12.09.2001 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur), in MAC Case No.145/1996. Non-claimants, namely, (1) The Commandant, 7th Battalion, RAC, Bharatpur and (2) The Home Commissioner, Ministry of Home Department, Secretariat Building, Jaipur, have filed Appeal No.34/2002 for quashment of the award and dismissal of claim petition with further prayer that they may be absolved from payment of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal on account of death of deceased Vijay Kumar Sharma, who was employed with them as Assistant Commandant and died in the accident while travelling in a gypsy owned by them, which was being driven by their driver Bheem Singh; and, claimants have filed Appeal No.961/2002 for enhancement of the compensation. Under impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,20,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants for death of Vijay Kumar in the accident. 2. Learned Additional Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of non-claimants-appellants in Appeal No.34/2002, contended that without there being any specific evidence, learned Tribunal determined monthly income of deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month whereas his monthly salary was only Rs.6,252/-. It has hypothetically deducted amount of Rs.1,200/- towards his self expenses and remaining amount of Rs.6,300/- has been taken as monthly dependency. The deceased, being the senior police officer, has to maintain himself and, in any circumstance, his self expenses ought to have been considered more than Rs.1,200/- and deduction towards his self-expenses must have been 1/3rd of his pay. Learned counsel further submitted that Rs.9,68,538/- has already been paid to dependents of deceased under various heads. It is contended that learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation, has failed to consider already paid amount to the dependents of the deceased. It is a case of res-ipsa-loquitur. Learned Tribunal has not properly considered this statement, which is very relevant. There is not even an iota of evidence, which establishes that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bheem Singh. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of mere conjuncture, held Bheem Singh negligible and made the non-claimants liable for payment of compensation, whereas truck involved in the accident could not be traced. Police has given a negative final report in the FIR. It is therefore prayed that the award may be set aside and appellants may be absolved of the liability to make payment of compensation. 3. Police has given a negative final report in the FIR. It is therefore prayed that the award may be set aside and appellants may be absolved of the liability to make payment of compensation. 3. Shri Vinod Tyagi, learned counsel for claimants-appellants in Appeal No.961/2002, has argued that the Tribunal has taken the monthly salary at Rs.6,252/- and after adding future prospects, determined monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-. However, learned Tribunal has erred in law in applying multiplier of 8 only, whereas, according to Schedule-II appended to the Act, for the deceased between age group 45 and 50, multiplier of 13 should have been applied. It is argued that even as per judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 13 should have been applied for this age group. Learned Tribunal has, on the basis of number of dependents, taken 14 units and reduced Rs.1200/- for two units towards self expenses of the deceased and, on that basis, determined the dependency at Rs.6,300/- per month. Learned counsel, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, supra, argued that since the deceased was salaried person, he had a definite income and therefore in view of his age, 30% should have been added towards future prospects, thus after adding 30% thereto, the income of the deceased should be taken at Rs.8,128/- and on that basis computation of compensation be made. It is prayed that the compensation be enhanced accordingly by allowing appeal filed by claimants. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that merely because heavy vehicle i.e. truck could not be traced and the police submitted final report in that case, cannot be a reason to deprive the claimants of compensation. The deceased was travelling in a gypsy owned by the non-claimants, which being driven by their employee driver Bheem Singh. Learned Tribunal has rightly held claimants entitled to receive compensation jointly and severally from all non-claimants, namely, appellants, the owner and the insurance company of the other vehicle. The deceased was travelling in a gypsy owned by the non-claimants, which being driven by their employee driver Bheem Singh. Learned Tribunal has rightly held claimants entitled to receive compensation jointly and severally from all non-claimants, namely, appellants, the owner and the insurance company of the other vehicle. In the present case, the deceased was travelling in the gypsy owned by non-claimants, which was being driven by their driver in rash and negligent manner, and, therefore, they would be vicariously responsible for this accident. Deceased Vijay Kumar Sharma was in that gypsy and he died on account of accident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bheem Singh. So far as income of deceased is concerned, the pay of the deceased at the relevant time was Rs.6,252/- and 30% thereof would be added towards future prospects on the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, supra, and thereby the monthly income would come to Rs.8,258/-. However, considering the fact that there were six dependents, namely, father, mother, widow, two sons and one daughter, deduction of only 1/5th could have been made towards self-expenses of the deceased, and 1/5th thereof would come to Rs.1,623/- and after deducting that 1/5th amount, the dependency would come at Rs.6,505/-. Applying the multiplier of 13, the quantum of compensation is enhanced to Rs.10,14,780/- calculating thus 6505x12x13. 5. In the result, the impugned award is modified. The amount of compensation of Rs.6,04,800/- is enhanced to Rs.10,14,780/-. This enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim application till the date of realization. The remaining award of Rs.15,000/- under non-pecuniary heads is maintained. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.