1. These Civil First Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 14.02.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in Claim Petitions titled as Manju and others v. Prabh Dayal and others, in File No. 456/Claim and Amrit Devi and others v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, in File no. 423/Claim, whereby award of Rs.11.05 lac and Rs.7,27,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents 1 to 4 with interest @ 7.5. p. a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeals (for short, impugned award). Brief facts: 2. On 06.11.2009, a bus bearing registration No. JKU/6367(hereinafter called as offending vehicle') which was being driven by one Om Singh rashly and negligently hit the Scooter bearing registration No. JK02G/3304, as a result of which, Rajesh Kumar-driver and Sat Pal-pillion rider (hereinafter called deceased) sustained grievous injuries and, later on, they succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants-respondents (dependents of both the deceased) being victims of the vehicular accident, filed Claim Petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu for grant of compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petitions. 4. The respondents were put to notice. Owner and driver have not contested the claim petition, therefore, were set ex parte and the Appellant-insurer contested the claim petition. 5. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1."Whether an accident took place on 06.11.2009 at Village Patoli, Jammu by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JKU/6367 in the hands of erring driver as a result of which deceased Shallow Ram and Sat Pal sustained fatal injuries ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners of both the claim petitions are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR-3 4. Relief. OPP." 6. The Claimants-respondents in CIMA no.80/2012 in support of their case have examined PW-Kewal Kumar whereas claimants-respondents in CIMA no.81/2012 have examined petitioner-Shashi and PW-Shamsher Singh and also placed on record documents. 7. OPR-3 4. Relief. OPP." 6. The Claimants-respondents in CIMA no.80/2012 in support of their case have examined PW-Kewal Kumar whereas claimants-respondents in CIMA no.81/2012 have examined petitioner-Shashi and PW-Shamsher Singh and also placed on record documents. 7. Appellant-insurer has not led any evidence in rebuttal, thus, evidence led by the claimants-respondents have remained un-rebutted. 8. The Tribunal after examining Claim Petition No. 453/claim held that the deceased Rajesh Kumar was earning Rs.8000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th for his personal expenses held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month and applied multiplier 15 while taking the age of the deceased as 29 years. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5000/- on account of 'funeral expenses', Rs.10,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 10,000/- on account loss of consortium. 9. The Tribunal after examining Claim Petition No. 423/claim held that the deceased Sat Pal was earning Rs.6000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th for his personal expenses held that the claimants-respondents have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4500/- per month and applied multiplier 13 while keeping the age of the deceased as 45 years. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5000/- on account of 'funeral expenses', Rs.10,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 10,000/- on account loss of consortium. 10. The claimants-respondents have not questioned the award but the appellant-insurer has questioned the award by the medium of appeals on the ground of 'adequacy of compensation'. 11. Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. It is apt to record herein that the appellant-insurer has not disputed the findings returned by the Tribunal on other issues, thus, challenge is restricted only to the extent of adequacy of compensation'. 12. The moot question for consideration is: whether appellant insurer has right to challenge the award on 'adequacy of compensation' ?. 13. Answer is in negative. However, keeping in view the age of deceased Rajesh Kumar and of his dependents, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in error while applying multiplier. 12. The moot question for consideration is: whether appellant insurer has right to challenge the award on 'adequacy of compensation' ?. 13. Answer is in negative. However, keeping in view the age of deceased Rajesh Kumar and of his dependents, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in error while applying multiplier. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with averments contained in the claim petition and the multipliers prescribed in the Scheduled-II attached with Motor Vehicles Act, I deem it proper to apply multiplier 14, which is just and appropriate. Ordered accordingly. The Tribunal has also fallen in error while deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of deceased, 1/3rd for his personal expenses was to be deducted, thus, it is held that after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, the claimants-respondents in claim petition no.453/claim (respondents in CIMA no.80/2012) have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.5500/- per month, thus, are entitled to compensation to the rune of Rs. 9.24,000/-(5500 x 12 x 14) and also entitled to Rs.2000/- on account of 'funeral expenses', 2500/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.5000/-on account of 'loss of consortium'. Thus, in total the claimants-respondents are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,33,500/-(Rs.9,24,000+2000+2500+5000) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 14. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th for personal expenses of the deceased in claim petition no.423/claim but has fallen in an error in applying multiplier 13. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with averments contained in the claim petition and the multipliers prescribed in the Scheduled-II attached with Motor Vehicle Act, I deem it proper to apply multiplier 11, which is just and appropriate. Ordered accordingly. Thus, the claimants- respondents in CIMA no. 81/2012 are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,94,000/-(4500x12x11) and also entitled to Rs. 2000/- on account of 'funeral expenses', 2500/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 5000/- on account of 'loss of consortium'. Thus, in total the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,03,500/- (Rs 5,94,00+2000+2500+5000) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 15. 2000/- on account of 'funeral expenses', 2500/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs. 5000/- on account of 'loss of consortium'. Thus, in total the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,03,500/- (Rs 5,94,00+2000+2500+5000) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 15. The amount of compensation is directed to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents after proper identification and verification strictly in terms of the impugned 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. 16. Registry to send down the records along with a copy of this order. 17. Disposed of along with connected CMA(s), if any.