JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. These appeals are being disposed of by a common award since the question involved in all these appeals are identical and all these appeals have been filed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay compensation. 2. The undisputed facts are that on 11.12.2002 bus No. HP-10-0300 which was owned by Shri Sunder Singh Nainta and driven by Shri Pradeep s/o Shri Tulsi Ram was going from Pujarli to Shillaroo. The bus went off the road and fell down into a khud. A number of persons died in the accident and some were injured. Claim petitions were filed by the injured and their legal heirs. The Insurance Company in its reply took various pleas and two main pleas taken were that the driver of the bus did not hold a valid driving licence and that the bus was being plied without any route permit and in breach of the terms of the policy. 3. From the evidence led on record it is apparent that the bus was specially engaged to carry passengers for a rally to be held by a political party. PW-3 who was one of the passengers specifically stated that the bus was engaged for specially carrying the passengers to a rally and that the passengers had not purchased any tickets. He also states that the bus was not being plied on Pujarli to Shillaroo route. The owner produced the route permit of the vehicle Ext.RA but this was valid from 30.10.1996 to 29.10.2001. RW-1 Jaspal Singh, clerk in the office of RTO, Shimla, has clearly stated that this is the only route permit of the vehicle available on record and there is no other route permit. He also stated that no special permit for taking the passengers to a political party was applied for or granted for 11.12.2002. The owner of the vehicle appeared as RW-3. He produced the copy of the Insurance Policy, etc. He in his statement has clearly stated that the Block President of the Congress party had applied for special permit for that day and the permit was in the bus but he could not locate the permit after the accident and the same was destroyed. He produced the copy of the Insurance Policy, etc. He in his statement has clearly stated that the Block President of the Congress party had applied for special permit for that day and the permit was in the bus but he could not locate the permit after the accident and the same was destroyed. The driving licence of the driver has been placed on record which shows that it is valid for heavy goods vehicle. After 1994 there are no different categories of transport vehicle and the said licence would be valid for a public service vehicle also. 4. The main question is whether the owner had a valid permit to ply the bus and if not whether the Insurance Company has to be exonerated of its liability. These matters were heard in part on 30.6.2011 on which date this Court had passed the following order:- Heard in part. One of the main questions which arises in these cases is, whether the owner of the bus had a valid route permit to ply the bus on the particular route or not. The owner in one of the case stated that he had applied for a route permit and in another case stated that Block President of Congress had applied for special permit for that day and the permit was in the bus. In my view to do the justice between the parties and effectively decide these cases, it is necessary to find out whether the owner had a valid route permit or not. The owner is called upon to file an affidavit disclosing whether the had any regular route permit of the bus in question on the date when accident took place. In case there was such a route permit, he shall disclose from which authority the route permit was issued. The owner in his affidavit shall also clearly state whether any special permit was obtained and if it was obtained from which authority? Affidavit be filed within two weeks. List on 14th July, 2011. 5. On 14.7.2011 Mr. Jagat Singh Shyam, learned counsel for the owner stated that no affidavit was to be filed by the owner and he would argue the matter without filing the affidavit. In the meantime, the Insurance Company filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for placing and proving on record the Insurance Policy. 5. On 14.7.2011 Mr. Jagat Singh Shyam, learned counsel for the owner stated that no affidavit was to be filed by the owner and he would argue the matter without filing the affidavit. In the meantime, the Insurance Company filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for placing and proving on record the Insurance Policy. These applications were allowed on 11.10.2011 since the Insurance Policy was on record but had not been proved strictly in accordance with the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the Senior Divisional Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. proved on record the policy of Insurance Ext.C-1/A. The owner then stated that he wanted to examine one witness i.e. concerned official from the Regional Transport Authority to produce the record relating to route permit of bus No. HP-10-0300. This request was allowed on 2nd November, 2011 and Shri Mohan Singh Chauhan, a clerk from the office of RTO, Shimla, was examined. He did not produce any route permit with regard to bus No. HP-10-0300 but produced another route permit for bus No. HP-10-0111, which is also owned by the same person namely Sunder Singh Nainta. 6. Shri Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the owner did not have a valid route permit to ply the bus and this was a breach of the condition of the policy and as such the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay any compensation. The policy Ext.C-1/A contains a stipulation that the policy covers use only under a permit issued within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus there is a specific stipulation in the policy that the vehicle should have a route permit. Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act read as follows:- 149. The policy Ext.C-1/A contains a stipulation that the policy covers use only under a permit issued within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus there is a specific stipulation in the policy that the vehicle should have a route permit. Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act read as follows:- 149. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under subsection (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or ; (d) without sidecar being attached where the vehicle is a motorcycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. 7. 7. A bare perusal of sub clause (i) (a) shows that one of the defences which is open to the Insurance Company is that the vehicle has been used for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward. Sub clause (i)(c) further provides that the Insurance Company can take a defence that the vehicle was being used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is being used, where vehicle is a transport vehicle. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 517 , while considering the scope and ambit of Section 149(2) of the Act held as follows:- 12. The High Court was of the view that since there was no permit, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. The view is clearly fallacious. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed on a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of the insurer. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable. 13. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. In the instant case, considering the quantum involved, we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured. 8. The then Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court in J.B. Pipes Vs. Madan Lal and Others, (2008) ACJ 574, following the Judgement of the Apex Court in Challa Bharathamma's case held as follows:- 8. Section 149(2) is very clear on the subject. It clearly lays down that it is open to an insurer to defend a claim on the ground of the breach of a policy condition excluding the use of vehicle for hire or reward where the vehicle is not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward. The expression, "where the vehicle is not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward", includes a situation where the vehicle is being plied in an area which is outside the coverage of the route permit. 9. It is thus clear that not only the defence of absence of permit but also that the vehicle is being used in violation of the terms of the permit and thus in violation of the provisions of the policy, is available to the insurer. 10. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Sujan Tiwari Vs. Sita Gupta and Others, (2009) ACJ 437, held as follows:- Since the vehicle was being driven on the route for which the permit was not granted, hence contravened the conditions of permit. In such circumstances, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 10. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Sujan Tiwari Vs. Sita Gupta and Others, (2009) ACJ 437, held as follows:- Since the vehicle was being driven on the route for which the permit was not granted, hence contravened the conditions of permit. In such circumstances, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability of payment. 11. The Apex Court in Kamala Mangalal Vayani and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 488 , 1441 held that it is for the Insurance Company to prove the violation of the policy. 12. On the other hand Shri Jagat Singh Shyam, Advocate, has relied upon a Judgement delivered by this Court in Smt. Vijay Kumari vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 760 wherein this Court held as follows:- 4. The issue whether the State should give route permits specific to a particular bus, or whether the route permits should be for the fleet of one owner came up for consideration before a Division of this Court in a group of matters. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the aforesaid bunch of cases in CWP No. 637 of 2005 titled as Shiv Kumar Kaul Vs. State of HP & Ors. and another connected matters disposed of these petitions in the following terms:- In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the writ petitions are allowed and it is held that as the law stands, the State has no power to direct that route permit shall be vehicle specific and granted for one vehicle only. The past practice of entering the registration numbers of all the vehicles owned by the operators shall be followed so long as necessary amendment is not made in the rules. 5. It is thus apparent that this Court held that as the law stood on January 2008 the State had no power to direct that route permit shall be vehicle specific and granted for one vehicle only. It was further directed that the State should follow the past practice of entering the registration numbers of all the vehicles owned by the owners till the amendment is not made in the rules. It was further directed that the State should follow the past practice of entering the registration numbers of all the vehicles owned by the owners till the amendment is not made in the rules. Therefore, by virtue of this judgment the necessary effect would be that the two route permits would be valid for both the buses. 13. Shri Jagat Singh Shyam, learned counsel for the owner, urged that it is proved on record that there was a valid route permit with regard to bus number HP-10-0111. This route permit would be applicable in respect of bus No. HP-10-0300 which was involved in the accident. In my view this submission of Shri Shyam, Advocate, cannot be accepted. In the case decided by this Court there was a route permit for every bus. However, the buses were being plied on a route for which the route permit was granted to another bus. It was in this context it was held after following the Division Bench Judgement of this Court that the past practice of entering the registration numbers of all the vehicles owned by the operators on all the route permits should be followed. In these cases there are a number of distinguishing factors. The first is that there was no route permit for bus No. HP-10-0300. If there was a route permit for this bus but it was plying on the route granted to bus No. HP-10-0111 then the Judgement would have been of help to the owner. However, when there was no route permit there was a total violation of the policy because each bus has to have separate route permit. 14. The other distinguishing factor is that even as per the owner of the bus and the passengers the bus had been hired by the Congress party for a rally. This was not a purpose of the route permit granted to bus No. HP-10-0111 also. The route permit was granted for a stage carriage and not a contract carriage. Therefore, even assuming that the route permit of bus No. HP-10-0111 would come to the rescue of the owner then also there is a violation of the route permit. 15. It is next contended by Shri Shyam that the bus was moving on the same route. The route permit was granted for a stage carriage and not a contract carriage. Therefore, even assuming that the route permit of bus No. HP-10-0111 would come to the rescue of the owner then also there is a violation of the route permit. 15. It is next contended by Shri Shyam that the bus was moving on the same route. I am afraid that this cannot be accepted since as pointed out above one of the passengers has clearly stated that the bus was not being plied on Pujarli - Shillaroo route. As such, there is a total absence of route permit and violation of the conditions relating to bus No. HP-10-0111 and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 16. However, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Challa Bharathamma's case the Insurance Company shall pay the amount to the claimants and shall have the right to recover the same alongwith interest as granted by this Court to the claimants from the owner of the bus. The Insurance Company shall not have to file a separate suit to recover the amount but can recover the same by filing Execution/Restitution proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. 17. Now, each of the individuals appeal/cross-objection wherein enhancement of compensation has been claimed are being taken up. FAO No. 548 of 2008: 18. This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount filed by the claimant. The claimant admittedly suffered injuries in the accident in question. 19. In support of his claim, the claimant examined Dr. P.C. Negi, head of the department of Cardiology, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, as PW-3, who stated that the petitioner will have to spend Rs. 600/- per month for medicines for the rest of his life. According to this witness, due to the accident the petitioner suffered fractures which led to clotting of blood in the legs. This clot of blood traveled to the heart and damaged the heart. According to Dr. P.C. Negi, Harnam Singh has disability of 50% and would require the help of an attendant throughout the life. Dr. Ravinder Mokta is the other doctor who has been examined as PW-4. According to him the disability is 40% in respect of the two limbs. It is thus obvious that the petitioner who is an agriculturist cannot walk properly. P.C. Negi, Harnam Singh has disability of 50% and would require the help of an attendant throughout the life. Dr. Ravinder Mokta is the other doctor who has been examined as PW-4. According to him the disability is 40% in respect of the two limbs. It is thus obvious that the petitioner who is an agriculturist cannot walk properly. The learned trial Court has made the award basically on conjectures and surmises and has not given any opinion as to on what basis he has given the award. 20. The law with regard to the compensation in injury cases is well settled. The injured has to be compensated both for pecuniary and non pecuniary losses. Pecuniary losses would include medical expenses, travel expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization charges, attendant charges, actual loss of income, etc. Non-pecuniary damages would cover loss for pain and suffering and loss for disability. 21. The record in this case shows that the petitioner had to undergo treatment for a long time. He was admitted initially in hospital from 11.12.2002 and discharged on 20.4.2003 i.e. after about 40 days. He was discharged after a shaft was inserted in the femur. Therefore, he was admitted in the hospital for 40 days. It has also come on record that due to fractures he suffered further complications which caused the heart ailment and for this he had to undergo a lot of tests, etc. Though the claimant has claimed that his income was Rs. 30,000/- per month but even if the income is taken at Rs. 5,000/- per month he lost the income not only for the 40 days when he was in the hospital but for at least three months later when he was under rest. Therefore, he is awarded Rs. 25,000/- for actual lose of income. The claimant while in the hospital must have been attended to by his family members. The accident took place in the year 2002 and therefore, the boarding and lodging expenses of one attendant would work out to Rs. 150 per day and if two attendants were to take care of the claimant it comes to Rs. 300/- per day and for 40 days it works out to Rs. 12,000/-. Dr. Negi has also opined that the claimant requires an attendant for the rest of his life. Even taking a conservative view of an attendant taking Rs. 2,000/- per month or Rs. 300/- per day and for 40 days it works out to Rs. 12,000/-. Dr. Negi has also opined that the claimant requires an attendant for the rest of his life. Even taking a conservative view of an attendant taking Rs. 2,000/- per month or Rs. 24,000/- per year and applying the multiplier of 13, he is entitled to Rs. 3,12,000/- for attendant charges. However, since the amount is being paid in lump sum over which he will also get interest the same is confined to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Similarly, the claimant will be spending Rs. 600/- per month on medicines which works out to Rs. 1,00,000/- for future expenses. In addition thereto, the claimant has produced on record, bills for Rs. 42,000/- and the same is rounded to Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of medical expenses for the past, present and future. 22. Coming to the claim of future loss of income, the claimant is an horticulturist and agriculturist. He has already been awarded some amount for payment to an attendant. It is true that he may not be able to do the actual work of horticulture because of the disability suffered by him but he can still get it managed with the help of the attendant already engaged for looking after him and also by engaging other employee. Applying the same formula, he is awarded another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for future loss of income. The claimant in addition to the aforesaid amount is held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- for future disability. The award is enhanced from Rs. 1,90,000/-to Rs. 6,87,000/-. The claimant shall be entitled to 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount. The interest is awarded at the lower rate since there is a substantial award for future loss of income and future attendant charges. FAO No. 297 of 2008: 23. The claimant admittedly suffered an injury in the accident. He in support of his claim examined PW-6 Avdhesh Kumar from Punjab Government College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. According to him, the petitioner was diagnosed as having fracture of Lumbar-3 with paraparesis for which he was admitted on 12.12.2002, operated on 19.12.2002 and discharged on 30.12.2002. According to him, the petitioner was getting regular follow up treatment at Chandigarh till 7.11.2003 from Dr. According to him, the petitioner was diagnosed as having fracture of Lumbar-3 with paraparesis for which he was admitted on 12.12.2002, operated on 19.12.2002 and discharged on 30.12.2002. According to him, the petitioner was getting regular follow up treatment at Chandigarh till 7.11.2003 from Dr. Raj Bahadur, Professor of Orthopedics, in the said hospital. According to this witness the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 50% as opined by Prof. Raj Bahadur. PW-7 Dr. Hardyal Singh Chauhan was the Senior Medical Superintendent at IGMC, Shimla. According to him the disability of the petitioner was 50% in relation to the entire body as per disability certificate Ext.PW-7/A. The petitioner has submitted medical bills for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Obviously, when the petitioner was treated some bills may not be kept and thus total expenses for medical treatment and taxi charges are rounded upto Rs. 40,000/-. He has been awarded Rs. 6,000/- for attendant charges. In my view, Rs. 10,000/- should be given as attendant charges. As far as the future loss of income is concerned, the learned trial Court has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 3,000/- per month. This is in fact on the lower side. The claimant was an agriculturist and was looking after an orchard. He may not be able to work in orchard because of serious injury suffered by him but he can obviously manage the orchard even now by engaging somebody to look after his work and if a person is engaged at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36000/- per year he would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,68,000/- by applying a multiplier of 13. The claimant in addition to the aforesaid amount, held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- for future disability. The award is enhanced from Rs. 2,96,300/- to Rs. 6,18,000/-. The claimant shall be entitled to 6% interest. The interest is awarded at the lower rate since there is a substantial award for future loss of income and future attendant charges. FAO No. 14 of 2007 & Cross Objection 283 of 2007 24. The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. As per his widow the deceased was doing agriculture and horticulture work and was growing vegetables and had an orchard. FAO No. 14 of 2007 & Cross Objection 283 of 2007 24. The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. As per his widow the deceased was doing agriculture and horticulture work and was growing vegetables and had an orchard. In addition thereto he was also allegedly working as a contractor with the Irrigation and Public Health Department. The agricultural property had to devolve upon the heirs itself but they have to be compensated for the work being done by the deceased. The learned trial Court has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36000/- per year and by applying a multiplier of 13 awarded a sum of Rs. 3,22,000/-. In my opinion, the award of the learned Tribunal is just and proper and calls for no interference. FAO No. 15 of 2007 & Cross Objection 284 of 2007. 25. The deceased was a house wife aged about 36 years. She left behind her husband and two minor sons aged about 16 and 13 years. The learned Tribunal has assessed the value of the services of the widow being rendered to her family members at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Apex Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. National Insurance Company and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 218 , in case of house wife held as follows:- 26. In India the courts have recognized that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by the wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer's work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of the husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as, cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc. but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as, cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean, etc. but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. 27. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the house wife/mother. In that context, the term "services" is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family while the deceased was giving earlier. 26. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assess the value of services of a house wife at Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- per year. Keeping in view the age of the claimants and the deceased the appropriate multiplier in this case would be 13. The loss of dependency works out to Rs. 4,68,000/-. In addition to the aforesaid amount, Rs. 10,000/- is awarded on account of conventional damages, Rs. 10,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral expenses i.e. Rs. 4,98,000/- which is rounded off to Rs. 5 lacs. The award is enhanced from Rs. 3,22,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The amount is apportioned as follows:- Davinder Singh Nainta Rs. 3,00,000/-Minor son Arjun Rs. 1,00,000/- Minor son Abhimanyu Rs. 1,00,000/-. FAO No. 16 of 2007 & Cross Objection No. 285 of 2007: 27. The deceased was aged about 60 years and was an agriculturist. Claimants No. 2 and 3 are his major sons and cannot be by any stretch of imagination said to be dependent on the deceased. They have also inherited the land of the deceased. 1,00,000/-. FAO No. 16 of 2007 & Cross Objection No. 285 of 2007: 27. The deceased was aged about 60 years and was an agriculturist. Claimants No. 2 and 3 are his major sons and cannot be by any stretch of imagination said to be dependent on the deceased. They have also inherited the land of the deceased. The learned trial Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2000/- per month. This is in fact on the lower side and is held at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since only the widow is being held entitled to compensation she is held entitled to 50% dependency or Rs. 1500/- per month or Rs. 18,000/- per year. Since the claimant was over 56 years the appropriate multiplier would be 7 and thus the dependency of the claimant works out to Rs. 1,26,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 14,000/- as loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- as conventional damages and Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses. The total award works out to Rs. 1,60,000/-. The entire amount shall be paid to the widow Smt. Krishna Dei. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and enhanced from Rs. 1,38,000/- to Rs. 1,60,000/-. FAO No. 17 of 2007 Cross Objection No. 286 of 2007: 28. In this case the deceased was an agriculturist aged about 38 years leaving behind his widow 34 years and two minor sons aged about 9 and 7 years. The income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses dependency of the family works out to Rs. 2,000/- per month or Rs. 24,000/- per year. By applying the multiplier of 16 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,84,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 16,000/- as consortium charges, Rs. 10,000/- as conventional damages and Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses. The total compensation works out to Rs. 4,20,000/-. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,94,000/- to Rs. 4,20,000/-. The amount of compensation apportioned as follows:-Smt. Sushma Devi Rs. 2,20,000/-Minor son Abhishekh Rs. 1,00,000/-Minor daughter Km. Rasna Rs. 1,00,000/- FAO No. 18 of 2007 & Cross Objection 298 of 2007 29. The total compensation works out to Rs. 4,20,000/-. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,94,000/- to Rs. 4,20,000/-. The amount of compensation apportioned as follows:-Smt. Sushma Devi Rs. 2,20,000/-Minor son Abhishekh Rs. 1,00,000/-Minor daughter Km. Rasna Rs. 1,00,000/- FAO No. 18 of 2007 & Cross Objection 298 of 2007 29. In this case the deceased was an agriculturist, aged about 33 years leaving behind his widow 30 years and two minor children aged about 5 and 7 years. The income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses dependency of the family works out to Rs. 2,000/- per month or Rs.24,000/- per year. By applying the multiplier of 17 the dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- as consortium charges, Rs.10,000/- as conventional charges and Rs.10,000/- as funeral charges. The total compensation works out to Rs.4,43,000/-. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from 3,50,000/- to Rs.4,43,000/-. The amount of compensation apportioned as follows :- Smt. Samila Rs. 2,43,000/- Minor son Subhash Rs. 1,00,000/- Minor daughter Baby Rs. 1,00,000/- 30. In this case the deceased was 22 years old and the claimants are parents. Even if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 3,000/- the dependency of the parents works out to Rs. 1500/- per month or Rs. 18000/- per year. By applying the multiplier of 14 the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,52,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as conventional damages and Rs. 10,000/- as funeral expenses. The total compensation works out to Rs. 2,72,000/-. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,02,000/- to Rs. 2,72,000/-. The amount of compensation is apportioned as follows:- Mother Smt. Shankari Devi Rs. 1,72,000/- Father Sh. Panna Lal Rs. 1,00,000/- FAO No. 13 of 2007 & Cross Objection 297 of 2007 31. The deceased in this case was 55 years of age. He is survived by his widow and one major son. There is no evidence to show that major son was in any way dependent on the deceased. The deceased was an agriculturist. Panna Lal Rs. 1,00,000/- FAO No. 13 of 2007 & Cross Objection 297 of 2007 31. The deceased in this case was 55 years of age. He is survived by his widow and one major son. There is no evidence to show that major son was in any way dependent on the deceased. The deceased was an agriculturist. The land has fallen to the share of the claimants and they will utilize the same land for their livelihood but they have to be compensated by the expertise and the labour being put in by the deceased. The learned trial Court took the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/-, which I feel is extremely on the lower side and should be at least Rs. 3,000/- per month. If 50% is taken to be loss of the wife, which works out to Rs. 18,000/- per year. The appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case (supra) would be 11 and the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 1,98,000/- for loss of dependency. In addition thereto, the widow is held entitled to Rs. 12,000/- for loss of consortium. She is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- as conventional damages. The award is enhanced from Rs. 1,86,000/- to Rs. 2,30,000/-. Whole awarded amount be paid to widow Smt. Samila wife of Late Sh. Mohinder Singh. 32. In all these cases except in FAO No.548 of 2008 and FAO No.297 of 2008 the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till deposit/payment of the awarded amount. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the awards as mentioned here-in-above but shall be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the owner of the bus Shri Sunder Singh Nainta. 33. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.