JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 11th June, 2012, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 133 of 2009, titled as Prem Singh and another versus Smt. Kala Devi and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondent 1 & 2 herein and the appellant-insurer was saddled with liability (for short, the “impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 2. It is averred in the claim petition that deceased Ganga Ram was traveling in vehicle-truck bearing registration No. HP-65-1582 on 25th September, 2009, which he had hired for carrying potatoes, cabbage and other vegetables from Gada-Gusaini to Ludhiana; met with an accident at Mohin near Choi Devta Temple, which was outcome of rash and negligent driving of driver, namely Raju alias Diwan; Ganga Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries; FIR No. 135 of 2009, dated 25.09.2009, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. against the driver. 3. The claimants being dependents of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition. 4. Claim petition was resisted and contested by the appellant-insurer and the owner-insured. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 25.06.2011:- “1. Whether Ganga Ram died in a motor vehicle on 25-09-2009 at about 2.30 p.m., at Choi Devta Temple at Village Mohani involving vehicle No. HP-65-1582 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner? …..OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, for what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? ….OPP 3. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as well as in violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as? If so, its effect? …OPR-2 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident? …OPR-2 5. If so, its effect? …OPR-2 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident? …OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger? If so, its effect? …OPR-2 6. Relief.” 5. Claimants examined Shri Sewak Ram (PW-2), Shri Man Singh (PW-3) and Constable Kuldeep Chand (PW-4) in support of their case. Shri Prem Singh (PW-1), one of the claimants also appeared in the witness box. They placed on record affidavits of Prem Singh, Sewak Ram and Man Singh, Ext. PW-1/A, Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-3/A, respectively; copy of FIR, Ext. PW-4/A; copy of death certificate and post mortem report of the deceased, Marks-A and B, respectively. Respondents also placed on record copy of driving licence, registration certificate of the vehicle and claim cheque, Ext. R.A, Ext. R.B and Mark-2, respectively. 6. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence, held that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver and the claim petition was decided in favour of the claimants and against the owner-insured. The insurer-appellant was saddled with liability. Issue No. 1 7. The insured-owner has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1. Even the insurer has also not questioned it. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No. 3, 4 & 5 8. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3, 4 & 5. 9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-insured has committed breach of the policy conditions; the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. It has not led any evidence. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues, are upheld. Issue No. 2 10. While addressing the arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the compensation is excessive and the multiplier applied is not just and appropriate. 11. The insurer cannot question the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation have gone through the impugned award and perused the record. The Tribunal after making guess work held that the deceased was earning Rs. 11. The insurer cannot question the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation have gone through the impugned award and perused the record. The Tribunal after making guess work held that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of his monthly income, held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2,650/- per month, which is too meager. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 48 years at the time of accident and the multiplier of ‘14’ was rightly applied. 12. Keeping in view the judgments made by the Apex Court in cases titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. 13. Having said so, the appeal is meritless, hence dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 14. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque. 15. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.