1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 19.02.2013, for short the impugned award, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, in claim petition titled Mumtaza Bano and others v. Ab. Rahim Malla and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 7, 10, 136/- with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till its final realization came to be passed in favour of the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 against the insurer/appellant, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 2. Claimants/respondents 1 to 3 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 27, 44, 000/- with 18% interest as per the details given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver, namely, Abdul Rahim Malla, respondent No. 4 herein, has driven the offending vehicle, tipper, bearing registration No. JK05B/3377 rashly and negligently on 28th October, 2009 at Chokichoori while coming from Akhnoor Jammu to Rajouri and met an accident with the result deceased, Shams ud Din Malik, sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. 3. After presentation of the claim petition, respondents were put to notice. Respondents 4 and 5, driver and owner, opted not to appear were set exparte. Appellant/insurer resisted the claim petition and field objections. Learned tribunal after consideration after of rival contentions of the claimants and appellant/insurer, framed following issues in the claim petition: "1. Whether on 28.10.2009, a vehicle (tipper) bearing regd. No. JK05B 3377 being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently going from Akhnoor Jammu to Rajouri on reaching near choki-choori (mode) lost control over his vehicle and turned turtle fell into the deep gorge about 50 fts from the main road causing thereby the serious injuries to one Shamus-ud-din Malik s/o Late Gh. Mohd. Malik R/o Nasoo Bandipora (herein after deceased) who was traveling the said vehicle as cleaner/laborers he succumbed to the injuries on 12.02.2010/OPP 2. Whether the respondent No. 1, driver was permitted by the respondent No. 2 owner to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident with invalid and ineffective D/L and other vehicular documents like fitness certificate at the time of accident if yes, the insured has committed the breach of policy stipulation absolved the respondent No. 3 company from its liability? OPR-3 3. OPR-3 3. In case the 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. Relief." 4. Claimants have examined Younis Ahmad Magray, Abdul Aziz Malik, Javid Ahmad Magray as witnesses and statement of one of the claimant, namely, Zahoor Ahmad Malik was also recorded. 5. Appellant/insurer has not led any evidence. Thus, evidence of the claimants has remained unrebutted. The tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants against the driver, owner and insurer. 6. Appellant has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Findings relating to other issues have not been challenged by the appellant. However, I have gone through the impugned award and I am of the considered view that claimants have proved that offending vehicle was driven by the driver rashly and negligently and deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thus, finding returned on issue No. 1 is upheld. Issue No. 2: 7. The insurer/appellant has failed to discharge onus on this issue. Thus, the finding returned by the tribunal is upheld. Issue No. 3: 8. Mr. Dendru, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that tribunal has fallen in error in awarding compensation while keeping in view the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short the M. V. Act, whereas, according to him, the compensation was to be awarded in terms of the provisions contained under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short the W.C. Act. 9. The argument of Mr. Dendru, though attractive, is without any force, for the following reasons. 10. Section 167 of the M. V. Act, provided an option to the claimants either to file claim petition before the tribunal or before the authority under W. C. Act. It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of M. V. Act, herein: "167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - - Notwithstanding in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both." 11. While going through the aforesaid provision of law, it is crystal clear that if claimants opt to invoke the jurisdiction in terms of Section 167 of M. V. Act, claim petition is to be decided in terms of the provisions contained in m. V. Act including schedule appended thereto and not in terms of the provisions contained in W. C. Act. 12. Same view has been taken by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in case titled Madho v. Uttamvir Singh & Ors, reported as 1992 ACJ 65 . 13. The tribunal after examining all the witnesses has held that deceased was earning Rs. 5000/- per month and after deducting one third, in terms of the mandate of Sarla Verma's judgment reported as 2009 (6) SCC 121 read with judgment reported as 2013 AIR SCW 3120, held that claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3, 334/- per month. The assessment made by the learned tribunal is just and is not excessive in any manner. However, the tribunal has fallen in error while applying multiplier 17 whereas the appropriate multiplier applicable was 16. 14. The learned tribunal has also fallen in error while awarding Rs. 10, 000/- each under the heads `funeral expenses', `loss of estate' and `loss of consortium' whereas, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 2500/-and Rs. 5000/- under the heads `Funeral Expenses', `loss of estate' and `loss of consortium'. 15. The interest awarded by the learned tribunal is reasonable and finding vis-a-vis the claimant/respondent No. 3, Zahoor Ahmad Malik, is entitled to only Rs. 50,000/- is also justified, as such, the findings are upheld. 16. Having said so, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 3334 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 6, 40, 128 + 2000 + 2500 + 5000 x = Rs. 6, 49, 728/- with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till its final realization. 17. Viewed thus, the impugned award is modified as indicated above. Awarded amount be released in favour of the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 strictly in terms of the impugned award after proper identification. Court fee shall be the first charge. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the appellant through payees account cheque. 18. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.