JUDGMENT : B.S. Verma, J. This appeal, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 14-8-2002, passed by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Roorkee, in MACT Case No. 98 of 1997, Smt. Anita v. Rakesh Kumar Jain. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6-9-1997 at about 4.15 P.M. when Vimlesh Kumar was travelling in vehicle bearing registration No. H.Y.E. 1409 from Muzaffarnagar to Mundiyaki, Bus No. U.P. 07-A-2188 dashed the vehicle HYE 1409, due to which he died. At the time of death of the deceased he was 32 years of age and by doing the work of mason he was earning Rs. 3600/- per month. The deceased has left behind him, his widow Smt. Anita aged 28 years, daughters Km. Puja aged 8 years, Km. Aarti aged 6 years and son Bhajan Singh aged 3½ years. The claimants filed petition for compensation in lieu of death of Vimlesh Kumar. 3. The opposite party No. 1-Aa, Oriental Insurance Company, insurer of vehicle U.P. 07-A-2188, filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. It is alleged that the vehicle was not having valid registration, fitness and permit and its driver was also not possessing valid driving license therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. 4. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 U.P.S.R.T.C. filed written statement and alleged that at the time of accident the Bus HYE 1409 was being plied on contract and the liability to pay the compensation is upon the shoulder of the owner and insurer of the Bus. 5. The opposite party No. 5, United India Insurance Company, insurer of Bus HYE 1409 has filed its written statement and alleged that the Bus was not having valid registration, permit and fitness at the time of accident and its driver was also not holding a valid driving license, hence the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. 6. The learned tribunal on the pleading of parties framed issues in the claim petition. 7. Thereafter parties, adduced evidence in support of their contentions. 8. The learned tribunal after hearing counsel for parties and perusing the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition against opposite parties 1, 1-Aa, 2 and 3 jointly and severally, for a sum of Rs. 6. The learned tribunal on the pleading of parties framed issues in the claim petition. 7. Thereafter parties, adduced evidence in support of their contentions. 8. The learned tribunal after hearing counsel for parties and perusing the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition against opposite parties 1, 1-Aa, 2 and 3 jointly and severally, for a sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till the date of actual payment. The claim petition against respondents 4 and 5 United India Insurance Company was dismissed. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the U.P.S.R.T.C. opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have preferred this appeal. 10. The claimants also filed Cross Objection against the impugned award for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/U.P.S.RT.C. has submitted that opposite party No. 1 Sri Rakesh Kumar Jain was registered owner of Bus No. U.P. 07-A/2188 and the bus was being plied on contract basis for he U.P.S.R.T.C. According to contract entered into between the parties in case of accident the registered owner and insurer of the bus were liable to make payment of compensation. But the learned Tribunal has recorded a wrong finding that as the Bus was being plied under the control of UPSRT, hence the U.P.S.R.T. is jointly liable to pay the compensation along with the insurer and the owner of the Bus. 13. The copy of contract executed between the owner and U.P.S.R.T.C. has been filed on record. In terms of contract driver was to be employed by the owner and all the expenses of registration, permit, fitness, petrol etc. were to be borne by the owner and the U.P.S.R.T.C. was not liable to the damages caused to Bus by the driver. Conductor was to be employed by UPSRTC. Condition No. 33 of the contract also specify that the owner of the Bus will ensure that the driver would possess valid driving license at all the times. Condition No. 10 of the agreement specifically provides that in the event of accident due to rash and negligence of the driver, the liability of compensation would be on the shoulders of the owner of the Bus and its insurer and the U.P.S.R.T.C. would not be liable. 14. Condition No. 10 of the agreement specifically provides that in the event of accident due to rash and negligence of the driver, the liability of compensation would be on the shoulders of the owner of the Bus and its insurer and the U.P.S.R.T.C. would not be liable. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company has submitted that the Bus U.P. 07-A-2188 was hired by U.S.R.T.C. and it was in possession and actual control of the U.P.S.R.T.C., therefore UPSRTC, would be included as owner of the Bus and the Corporation is vicariously liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention learned counsel has cited before me the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 481 . 15. I have gone through the above cited ruling. In the above cited case the bus was hired to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation under an agreement for plying the vehicle on route for which prmit had been granted in favour of SRTC. Condition No. 15 of the agreement in that case is to the effect that- “upon the accident of the bus taking place the owner of the bus shall be liable for the loss, damages and for the liabilities relating to the safety of the passengers. The corporation shall not be liable for any accident. If the Corporation is required to make any payment or incur any expenses though some court or under some mutual compromise, the corporation shall be liable to recover such amounts from the owner of the bus after deducting the same from the amounts payable to him.” 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the second part of condition No. 15 makes it abundantly clear that their SRTC did not completely shift the liability to the owner of the bus because it provided for reimbursement to it in case it has to pay compensation arising out of an accident. The later part of condition No. 15 leave no ambiguity in that behalf and clearly go to show the intention of the parties. 17. However, the position here is different. As per the condition No. 1 of agreement the Bus was being plied under the control of UPSRTC but the ownership was with owner of the Bus owner. The later part of condition No. 15 leave no ambiguity in that behalf and clearly go to show the intention of the parties. 17. However, the position here is different. As per the condition No. 1 of agreement the Bus was being plied under the control of UPSRTC but the ownership was with owner of the Bus owner. According to condition No. 2 all the legal obligations like registration of the bus, tax payment, insurance liability etc. were with the owner of the bus. Even the expenses of diesel, repairs of the bus etc were to be borned by the owner and the vehicle was to be made available by the owner half an hour before the time given by UPSRT at a particular place. 18. Condition No. 3.2. specifically provides that the driver of bus would be in the employment of the owner of the bus and the services of the driver were not transferred with the complete ‘control’ of UPSRTC. Therefore, the UPSRTC cannot be vicariously liable to for the tort committed by the driver during the course of his employement. 19. Therefore, the U.P.S.R.T.C. cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 20. The learned tribunal has recorded a finding that the Bus was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and the accident had occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Bus No. U.P. 07-A-2188, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is upon the Oriental Insurance Company. 21. So far as the cross-objection filed by the claimants is concerned, the deceased was 32 years of age and according to claimant he was a mason by profession and used to earn Rs. 120/- per day. The claimant in her statement on oath has stated that at the time of death of her husband in the year 1997 a mason was getting wages of Rs. 60/- per day. The learned tribunal also observed that a mason do not get work for all the days and in rains he has to sit idle and in absence of any reliable and convincing evidence in support of income of the deceased, the tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 1,500/- and after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, a net dependency of claimant upon the deceased comes to Rs. 1000/- per month. 1,500/- and after 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased, a net dependency of claimant upon the deceased comes to Rs. 1000/- per month. The tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘15’, which is certainly on lesser side in view of the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 . In the above cited case the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that between the age group of 31 to 35 a suitable multiplier would be ‘16’. Therefore, the suitable multiplier in the instant case where the age of deceased was 32, should be ‘16’ in place of ‘15’ and after applying the multiplier of ‘16’ the compensation would be Rs. 1000/- × 12 × 16= Rs. 1,92,000/-. 22. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 5000/- towards loss of love and affection, which the claimants are entitled to get. In this way the total compensation comes to Rs. 1,92,000/-+ Rs. 2,000/-+ Rs. 5,000/-= Rs. 1,97,000/-. 23. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 24. The appeal is allowed. The appellant/U.P.S.R.T.C. is absolved from the liability of compensation. 25. The Cross Objection is partly allowed. The claimants are awarded a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/-, as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of actual payment, payable by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., instead of Rs. 187,000/- as has been awarded by the tribunal.