1. Challenge in this CIMA is to the award dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi in a Claim Petition titled Mst. Neegina Banoo and others v. Mir Hussain and others whereby an award of Rs. 12,87,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents 1,3 to 7 from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization (for short, impugned award). 2. It is profitable to give flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. 3. The claimants respondents 1 to 7 being victims of vehicular accident filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi on the grounds that Abdul Rashid s/o Gulam Ahmed Khan, r/o village Gond Tathar, Tehsil Banihal, aged 50 years, who was serving in the Police Department and posted in Traffic Police at Jammu was hit by a vehicle bearing registration No. 3537/JK02B (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'), which was being driven by its driver, namely, Abdul Qayoom alias Guddu, rashly and negligently, at GLD Chowk, as a result of which, Abdul Rashid (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') sustained grievous injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries. 4. FIR No.114/2006 for the commission of offences under Sections 279/304-A Ranbir Panel Code (For short, RFC) came to be registered at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. 5. The deceased was the only source of dependents and the claimants-respondents have lost source of dependency, love and affection, and being victims of the vehicular accident, filed Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi on 06.02.2008 for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.34,00,000/- along with interest @ 14% per annum, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. The respondents were put to notice. Appellant-insurer filed.objections and contested the claim petition. The driver and owner-respondents 8 and 9 herein despite service did not appear and were proceeded ex parte. 7. Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the deceased died in Road Traffic accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.JK02B/3537 by respondent No.2? (OPP) 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to, and from whom ? (OPP) 3. Whether the deceased died in Road Traffic accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.JK02B/3537 by respondent No.2? (OPP) 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to, and from whom ? (OPP) 3. Whether the vehicle was being driven by respondent No.2 without a valid driving license and against the terms of insurance policy and in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act ? (OPR-3) 8. The claimants-respondents 1 to 7 examined PW-Ajay Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Shakeel Ahmed and have also placed on record documents, i.e., FIR, accidental report and salary slip of the deceased to substantiate their claim. 9. Appellant-insurer has not led any evidence in rebuttal, thus, the evidence led by the claimants-respondents 1 to 7 have remained un-rebutted. 10. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant restricted his argument only to the extent of 'adequacy of compensation' and has not disputed the findings returned b) the Tribunal on issues Nos.1 and 3 and even otherwise also, the appellant-insurer has not led any evidence, thus, the evidence led by the claimants-respondents 1 to 7 has remained un-rebutted. 11. I have gone through the impugned award and am of the considered view that there is sufficient evidence on record to the effect that the driver, namely, Abdul Qayoom alias Guddu has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit Abdul Rashid (deceased), who sustained grievous injuries and later on suecumbed to the injuries. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 12. The appellant-insurer has failed to discharge onus, thus, issue No.3 rightly came to be decided in favour of the claimants-respondents 1 to 7, driver, owner, and against the appellant-insurer. 13. Now question for consideration is: whether the compensation is just and appropriate? 14. Admittedly, the deceased was working in the Police Department as Head Constable and posted in Traffic Police, Jammu at the relevant point of time. The claimants-respondents 1 to 7 have placed on record his salary slip to substantiate their claim and indicated that income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.12,143/-. 15. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was working in the Police Department as Head Constable and posted in Traffic Police, Jammu at the relevant point of time. The claimants-respondents 1 to 7 have placed on record his salary slip to substantiate their claim and indicated that income of the deceased at the time of accident was Rs.12,143/-. 15. Learned Tribunal has rightly held that after deducting 1/4th for his personal expenses, an amount of Rs.9375/- per month can be treated as monthly economic loss to the claimants-respondents and annual loss would be Rs.1,12,500/-, i.e., (9375 x 12 = 1,12,500). 16. In the Claim Petition, the age of the deceased is shown as 50 years at the time of accident. However, the Tribunal in terms of Schedule-II attached with the Motor Vehicles Act has held that instead of 13 applied multiplier 11 after making some deduction. While keeping in view the age of the deceased and the claimants-respondents 1 to 7 read with the fact that minor daughters are to be married and judgment of the Supreme Court on the point, I am of the considered view that multiplier 10 is just and appropriate. Accordingly, multiplier 10 is applied and it is held that claimants-respondents, thus, have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 11,25,000 (9375 x 12 x 10 = 11,25,000). 17. The Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding 20,000/- on account of 'loss of consortium and love and affection', Rs. 20,000/- on account of 'loss of future amenities/estate and Rs.10,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'. Keeping in view Second Schedule attached with the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are entitled to general damages on account of death of the deceased at Rs.5000/- as loss of 'consortium', Rs.2000/- on account of 'funeral expenses' and Rs.2500/- on account of 'loss of estate'. Thus, in total, the claimants-respondents are entitled to Rs. 11,34,500/- (11,25,000 + 5000 + 2000+ 2500 = 11,34,500) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 18. The amount of compensation be released in favour of the claimants-respondents after their 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. 19. The amount of compensation be released in favour of the claimants-respondents after their 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. 19. Send down the record along with copy of the order. 20. Disposed of as above along with connected CMA (s), if any.