1. This CIMA is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri, in a Claim Petition, titled as, Khurshid Alam & another v. Tulsi Ram Thakur & another, whereby an award of Rs.5,49,500/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of claimants-respondents 1 & 2 herein (for short, impugned award), on the grounds taken in the appeal. Brief facts: 2. Deceased, namely, Khaliq Hussain, was a driver by profession. He was the employee of one Tulsi Ram Thakur, respondent no.3 herein. On 25.05.2004, when he was driving the Tata Truck, bearing registration No.HP-11-0916 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’), and reached at Jawala Mukhi Nadoom, Himachal Pradesh, it went out of his control due to some mechanical defect, as a result of which it smashed with a mango tree and rolled down off the road. Deceased sustained serious injuries and he died on the spot. 3. Claimants, respondents 1 & 2 herein, being the victims of the vehicular accident filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.43,65,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the petition. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the deceased was earning rupees eleven thousand per month. 4. Appellant herein and the owner of the offending vehicle were put to notice. Appellant appeared and filed the written statement resisting the claim petition. Owner, respondent no.3 herein, did not appear and was set exparte. 5. Out of pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed:- “1. Whether on 25.05.2004, deceased Khaliq Hussain s/o Khurshid Alam R/o Kandi was himself driving the vehicle No.HP-II-0916 suddenly though not being negligent at all, the vehicle went out of his control due to some latent mechanical defect in it and got smashed against a mango tree and rolled down of the road due to which the deceased died on spot? OPP 2. In case Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have been violated, as such respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners? OPR-2 4. OPP 2. In case Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have been violated, as such respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners? OPR-2 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the owner? OPR 5. Whether the offending vehicle at the time of accident was over speeded, as such the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner? OPR-2. 6. Whether the documents of the offending vehicle were not in order at the time of accident, as such, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners? OPR-2 3. Relief ?” 6. Claimants-respondents 1 & 2 examined PWs Mohd Shafiq and Om Parkash, besides claimant-respondent no.1 also appeared in the witness box. 7. There is sufficient, oral as well as documentary, evidence on the file to the effect that the offending vehicle went out of control of the deceased due to some mechanical defect, as a result of which it smashed with a mango tree and rolled down. Deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the claimants have succeeded in proving that the accident was out of the use of motor vehicle. Issue no.1, therefore, came to be rightly decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of claimants-respondents 1 & 2 herein. 8. Appellant-insurer has not led any evidence in rebuttal, thus the evidence led by the claimants has remained un-rebutted. Since appellant-insurer had failed to discharge onus, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 in favour of claimants and against the appellant-insurer. 9. Claimants by leading evidence have proved that the deceased was a driver by profession and was the employee of respondent no.3 herein. Learned Tribunal after scanning the evidence as well as the record and after making guess work held that the minimum average income of the deceased would not have less than Rs.4500/- per month and after deducting one third as his personal income, held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month. Learned Tribunal after scanning the evidence as well as the record and after making guess work held that the minimum average income of the deceased would not have less than Rs.4500/- per month and after deducting one third as his personal income, held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month. The claimants have not only lost the source of dependency, but have also lost the source of help and hope in their old age. 10. However, the Tribunal has fallen in error while applying multiplier 15 taking the age of the deceased as 28 years at the time of accident. The multiplier was to be applied while keeping in view the age of deceased read with the age of claimants, respondents 1 & 2 herein. As per the findings returned by the learned Tribunal, the age of deceased was 28 years at the time of accident and as per the record the age of claimants was 56 and 55 respectively at the time of filing of the claim petition. In terms of the Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, multiplier 12 is applicable, which is just and appropriate multiplier. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,32,000/- (3000 × 12 × 12). 11. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.2000/- under the head funeral expenses and Rs.2500/- under the head loss of estate. However, the Tribunal has fallen in error while awarding Rs.5000/- under the head loss of consortium. Thus the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,36,500/- (4,32,000 + 2000 + 2500) along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 12. Disposed of along with all connected CMAs.