1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents, Claims Tribunal, Reasi in File no. 29/Claims titled as Reeta Devi v Bharat Singh and others whereby an award of Rs. 6,92,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. came to be awarded in favour of the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal (for short, impugned award). Brief facts: 2. Deceased Parshotm Kumar son of Bodh Raj resident of Salal, Tehsil Reasi while travelling in Matador bearing registration JK14/9018 from Arnas to Reasi met with an accident near SBI Bank, Jyotipuram and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries, leaving behind wife, son and daughter and invoked jurisdiction of the Claim Tribunal, Reasi for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/-as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 3. Appellant and owner failed to appear, thus were set exparte. 4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be famed by the Tribunal:- "1. Whether, the deceased died in a Road traffic Accident on 17.07.2006 on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. JK14/9018 by is driver respondent no.1/driver? OPPs. 2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom (OPPs). 3. Whether, the vehicle was being driven in violation of conditions of Insurance Policy and without a valid driving licence ? (OPR3) 5. Claimants have examined Mohinder Kumar and also placed on records the documents. Appellant-insurer has not led any evidence in rebuttal, therefore, evidence of the claimants-respondents remained un-rebutted. Learned counsel has not questioned the findings of the Tribunal on issue no.1. However, after scanning the evidence of the claimants-respondents, which has remained un-rebutted, it is proved that the accident was caused due to rash and negligently driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, thus, issue no. 1 has rightly been determined by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants-respondents. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue no.1 are upheld. 6. Before discussing issue no.2, I deem it proper to deal with issue no.3. Issue no. 3 7.
1 has rightly been determined by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants-respondents. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue no.1 are upheld. 6. Before discussing issue no.2, I deem it proper to deal with issue no.3. Issue no. 3 7. Appellant-insurer has failed to discharge onus, thus has failed to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the insurance policy. Accord ingly, issue no.3 rightly came to be decided against appellant-insurer and the same is upheld. Issue no.2. 8. Claimants have proved that the deceased was earning Rs. 4500/per month. Tribunal has held that the multiplier 17 was applicable. Thus, I/3rd is to be deducted for his personal expenses which comes to Rs. 1500/- leaving behind a balance of Rs. 3000/- per month which can be treated as monthly economic loss to the claimants and annual loss would be Rs. 36000/-. However, Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying multiplier 17 while keeping the age of the deceased and the claimants. As per the age of the deceased and claimants multiplier 15 is just and appropriate applicable. Accordingly, multiplier 15 is applied and held that claim ants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 5,40,000/- (3000 x 12 x 15). The claimants are entitled to Rs. 2000 and 5000 under the head of "funeral expenses" and "loss of estate' and Rs. 5000/-on account of "loss of consortium". Thus, in total, claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,52,000/- (540000+2000+5000+5000) along with inter est @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till its realization. 9. The amount of compensation is directed to be released in favour of the claimants after proper identification and verification strictly in terms of the im pugned award. The court fee shall be the first charge. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the Insurance Company, through "Account Payees Cheque". Accordingly, award is modified to the extent as indicated above. 10. Disposed of along with connected CMP(s).