Judgment Respondent No.3 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal, filed this appeal primarily questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants. They sought compensation at Rs.3,00,000/-under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules thereunder for the death of their son-V. Chendra Sekhar @ Sekhar. After recording evidence and considering the respective claims, the Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.1,55,671/-together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. 2. When the deceased was travelling in a Tata Sumo Van bearing Registration No. AP 36E 6611 on 11.03.1999, the driver of the van, who is the third respondent herein, allegedly drove the van in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the van hitting a tree leading to the ultimate death of nine persons. The deceased was one among them. 3. The question whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van does not arise for consideration in this appeal, since the question is regarding the quantum of compensation only. 4. Ex.A.4/Ex.B.1 is the copy of the policy. Ex.B.5 is the copy of certificate of registration. Ex.A.4/Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.5 disclose that the seating capacity of the offending van was nine passengers plus driver. The policy covers 10 persons only including the driver. While so, admittedly, 11 persons were travelling in the van at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer inter alia contended that carrying 10 passengers by the driver (11 persons in all including the driver) is tantamount to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and that the insurer, consequently, is not liable to the claim. However, this contention had been repelled by the Tribunal placing reliance upon B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (1996 ACJ 1178). The Supreme Court held in that case that mere carrying one or two persons by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle could not be considered to be a fundamental breach so as to exonerate the insurer from liability. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer indeed is liable to satisfy the claim of the dependents of the deceased travelling in the van including the claimants herein. 5. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer indeed is liable to satisfy the claim of the dependents of the deceased travelling in the van including the claimants herein. 5. The claimants asserted that the deceased was working as a tailor and also as an agriculturist earning Rs.3,000/-per month. PW.1, father of the deceased deposed that the deceased was earning between Rs.1,200/-to Rs.1,500/-per month as a tailor. The Tribunal, however, considered it appropriate to determine the notional income on an average at Rs.16,000/-per annum. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, there would not appear to be any appropriate reason for determining the income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/-per annum. The Tribunal could have followed the second schedule and determined the income notionally at Rs.15,000/-per annum. It could have taken note of the fact that the deceased was a tailor and held driving licence and determine the income at a higher rate. The Tribunal, however, determine the income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/-per annum without stating the reasons for arriving at such a figure. However, I do not deem it appropriate to differ from the annual notional income as arrived at by the Tribunal. I, therefore, proceed with the calculation considering that the income of the deceased was Rs.16,000/-per annum. Taking the age of the mother of the deceased at 40, the Tribunal applied multiplier ‘13’. After the dictum of Sarla Verma (Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ), the multiplier applicable for a person of 40 years is ‘15’. However, recently the Supreme Court held in Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012 ACJ 2002)that the age of the deceased alone shall be considered to determine the multiplier even if the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident and consequent death. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to determine the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased. 6. Albeit the claimants asserted that the deceased was 22 years old at the time of the accident, it is evident from Ex.A.3 copy of the driving licence of the deceased that the deceased was 28 years old at the time of his death as he was born on 26.04.1970 and died on 11.03.1999. The relevant multiplier for a 28-year-old person is ‘17’. The relevant multiplier for a 28-year-old person is ‘17’. Where the annual notional income of the deceased is Rs.16,000/-and the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’, the amount would be Rs.2,72,000/-. However, where the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death, half of the income of the deceased deserves to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. After deducting half of Rs.2,72,000/-, the amount of loss of dependency, loss of life and future expectancy of life deserves to be worked out at Rs.1,36,000/-. 7. The deceased was 28 years old at the time of his death. Consequently, compensation at Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate deserves to be awarded in favour of the claimants. The claimants are also entitled to compensation at Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/-towards transport charges. 8. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation at a) Compensation towards loss of income, loss of dependency and future expectancy of life .. Rs.1,36,000/- b) Compensation towards loss of estate .. 10,000/- c) Compensation towards funeral expenses .. 2,000/- d) Compensation towards transport charges .. 1,000/- Total .. Rs.1,49,000/- 9. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum. Where the death of the deceased was in 1999, it would be just and proper to award interest at 7% per annum. 10. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.1,49,000/-together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The respondents 3 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim. They shall deposit the awarded amount within one month from today. The claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to equal halves out of the awarded amount. 11. After deposit, they shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.40,000/-each at the first instance. The balance shall lie in fixed deposit for a period of three years at the end of which, the claimants 1 and 2 shall be entitled to withdraw the balance together with accrued interest. In case of emergency, the claimants may approach the Tribunal for release of additional funds. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.