1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.08.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in case titled Mst. Rehti & ors. v. Union of India & others, in file No. 155/claim, whereby an amount of Rs. 9,22,104/- with 6% interest came to be awarded in favour of claimants-respondents and against the appellant-insurer (for short, the impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that husband of claimant-respondent no. 1, father of claimants 2 to 4 and son of claimant-respondent no. 5, namely, Abdul Rehman Wangnoo was hit by the offending vehicle, bearing No. 90-P-825 (army vehicle) at Bemina Bye-pass road on 08.05.2002, which was being driven by appellant no. 4 rashly and negligently, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same at SKIMS, Soura. FIR No. 83/2002 came to be registered at Police Station Parimpora. 3. Claimants-respondents herein claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs as per the break-up given in the claim petition. 4. Appellants herein resisted the claim petition and following issues came to be framed: "1. Whether on 08.05.2002 Najoor-ul-Islam respondent no. 4 under the employment of remaining respondents was plying Army vehicle No. 90-P-825 rashly and negligently as a result of which near J.V.M.C Bemina it hit Abdul Rehman Wangnoo who sustained fatal injuries and though he was rushed to SKIMS Soura, and succumbed to his injuries on 25.08.2002? OPP 2i In case issue no. 1 is not proved, whether the death of the deceased was not direct resultant of the accident? OPP 3. In case issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP 4. Relief." 5. Claimants-respondents examined Mohammad Subhan Malla, Gh. Nabi Wadoo, Ab. Salam Denthoo and Abdul Gani, ASI as witnesses in support of their claim. Claimant Mst. Rehti also appeared in the witness box. 6. Appellant examined Nazar-ul-Islam, driver of the offending vehicle. 7. Issue No. 1. All the witnesses examined by the claimant have deposed that the driver while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 08.05.2002 hit Abdul Rehman Wangoo, who sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Claimant Mst. Rehti also appeared in the witness box. 6. Appellant examined Nazar-ul-Islam, driver of the offending vehicle. 7. Issue No. 1. All the witnesses examined by the claimant have deposed that the driver while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 08.05.2002 hit Abdul Rehman Wangoo, who sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Appellants have not been able to shatter the evidence, even learned counsel for appellants has not seriously questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal while deciding issue no. 1. Accordingly it is held that respondents-claimants have proved the said issue. 8. Issue No. 2. Appellants herein have failed to prove the issue. However, there is sufficient evidence on the file that the cause of death was motor vehicular accident. Learned counsel for appellants has not seriously questioned the evidence returned by the Tribunal on issue no. 2. Thus, the finding returned by the Tribunal is upheld. 9. Issue No. 3. Claimants have succeeded in leading the evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 7000/- per month. In addition to it, he was also running a small shop and was earning additional income of Rs. 3000/- per month. The Tribunal after taking all the facts in view has held that the deceased was earning Rs. 7000/- per month and after making deductions has held that claimants-respondents have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 5334/-. It is beaten law of the land that multiplier method is the best method for assessing just and appropriate compensation. While keeping in view the age of deceased and that of claimants the Tribunal has applied multiplier 13, which in my view is just and appropriate multiplier. Thus the total source of dependency comes to 5334 x 12 x 13 = 8,32,104/-. 10. The Tribunal, however, has fallen in error while awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- under the head loss of dependency, Rs. 5000/- on account of medical expenses, Rs. 5000/-on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 15000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 15000/- under the head loss of love and affection. Instead, claimants-respondents are held entitled to Rs. 2000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- on account of loss of estate. Thus, the claimants-respondents are held entitled to Rs. 5000/-on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 15000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 15000/- under the head loss of love and affection. Instead, claimants-respondents are held entitled to Rs. 2000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 2500/- on account of loss of estate. Thus, the claimants-respondents are held entitled to Rs. 8,41,604/-(832104 + 5000 + 2500 + 2000) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 11. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. 12. Disposed of along with all CMPs.