1. Appellants have called in question Award dated 24th September, 2012, for short `impugned award' passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, for short Tribunal, by virtue of which claimants/ respondents were awarded an amount of Rs. 5,06,000/- with 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition till its final realization. BRIEF FACTS 2. Manzoor Ahmad Sheikh S/o Gh. Rasool Sheikh R/o Zaloosa chrar-e-Sharief, has driven TATA 407 (Metador) bearing registration no. JK01F/5458 rashly and negligently on 22-08-2008 while coming from Chrar-e-Sharief towards Chadoora. In the way the vehicle met with an accident near Radar Station. The deceased who was traveling in the vehicle sustained and succumbed to injuries. FIR no. 141/2008 was registered in the police station concerned for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Ranbir Penal Code, for short RPC. 3. Being the victims of vehicular accident, the claimants 1 to 5 filed claim petition for grant of compensation. The claim was resisted by the appellant only while as owner and driver of the offending vehicle have not contested the same, therefore, have been proceeded with in exparte. Tribunal framed following issues for determination: 1. Whether on 22.08.2008 Tata 407 bearing no. JK01F/5458 being driven by the respondent driver rashly, negligently and carelessly from Chari-Sharief towards Chadoora on reaching near Radar Station lost control over the said vehicle and the said vehicle turned turtle resulting into fatal injuries to one Mohd. Iqbal Shah traveling in the said vehicle who succumbed to the same in hospital?...OPP 2. Whether the respondent owner engaged the respondent driver knowingly with invalid/ineffective DL which fundamentally contributed the cause of accident, if yes, the respondent owner has committed breach of insurance contract absolving the respondent company from its liability arising from the insurance contract? OPR-Company 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. Claimants examined Abdul Rashid Shah, Fayaz Ahmad Mir, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar as witnesses and Shahnaz Hussain and Hameed Ali, the claimants, have also appeared as their own witnesses. 5. Appellant/ insurer has examined only one witness namely Harish Raina. 6. All the witnesses examined by the claimants have deposed that driver has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The deceased sustained and succumbed to the injuries in the said accident. 5. Appellant/ insurer has examined only one witness namely Harish Raina. 6. All the witnesses examined by the claimants have deposed that driver has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The deceased sustained and succumbed to the injuries in the said accident. 7. The evidence lead by the claimants has remained unrebutted. However, appellant has examined Sh. Harish Raina, who has conducted investigation as Investigator and has stated that deceased was on the rooftop of the vehicle and sustained injuries. The Apex Court and this Court in series of cases have held that allowing a passenger to sit on the rooftop of the vehicle by the driver itself is an act of rash and negligent driving of the driver. Thus the finding returned on issue no.1 is upheld. 8. The deceased was a bachelor, and by leading evidence the claimants have proved his income to be 2000/- per day. The Tribunal after making guess work has come to the conclusion that deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has fallen in error in making deductions as only 1/3rd of the income has been deducted for his personal expenses, when as a matter of fact the deduction in case of a bachelor should have been 50% in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case. The Tribunal has also fallen in error while applying multiplier in the case. 9. While keeping in view the age of the deceased and that of the claimants, read with the schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, the appropriate multiplier in the case was 12. 10. The Tribunal has also fallen in error in granting Rs. 10.000/- under the head funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of estate. The claimants were actually entitled to Rs. 2000/- and 2500/-under the said heads respectively. 11. Accordingly the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 3000 x 12 x 12 + 2000 + 2500 = 4,36,500/- with 6% interest payable from the date of institution of claim petition till its final realization. 12. The amount deposited be released in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of this order read with the impugned Award. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant through payees account cheque. 13. Disposed of.