JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Appellant, victim of a motor vehicular accident, by the medium of this appeal, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") and has questioned the award, dated 23rd March, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Cl. Pet. No. 39/06, titled as Smt. Tejwanti versus Shri Ibrahim Bharti and others, whereby her claim petition came to be dismissed (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"). Brief facts: 2. Appellant-claimant, widow of deceased-Keshav Ram, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is pleaded that on 22nd December, 2005, deceased, namely Shri Keshav Ram, was travelling in the offending bus, bearing registration No. HP-34-5546, was stopped by the driver at Village Khakhnal enabling him to debark. In the process of debarking, the driver suddenly drove the vehicle. Resultantly, the deceased lost control and fell down, sustained injuries, was taken to Lady Willingdon Hospital, Manali, where he breathed last. MLC was issued. The claimant-widow had asked the police not to conduct postmortem and also asked not to conduct investigation. 3. Appellant-claimant filed claim petition for grant of compensation, was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether petitioner has received injuries on her person in the accident of bus No. HP-34-5546 due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus by respondent-2? OPP 2. If issue-1 is held in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent-2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident of the vehicle in question and the same was being plied without documents? OPR-3 4. Relief." 5. The claimant has examined Dr. Alka Waltar as PW-1, HC Hari Singh as PW-2, Shri Tara Chand as PW-4 and the claimant, Smt. Tejwanti, herself has appeared in the witness box as PW-3. OPR-3 4. Relief." 5. The claimant has examined Dr. Alka Waltar as PW-1, HC Hari Singh as PW-2, Shri Tara Chand as PW-4 and the claimant, Smt. Tejwanti, herself has appeared in the witness box as PW-3. The owner-insured and the driver have examined Shri Praveen Kumar, Clerk-cum-Typist from the office of SDJM, Chachiot at Gohar as RW-1, Shri Chetan as RW-2, the owner insured, Shri Ibrahim Bharti, himself has stepped into the witness box as RW-3 and the driver, namely Shri Mohinder Singh, has also appeared in the witness box as RW-4. The insurer has not examined any witness in support of its case. Issue No. 1: 6. The Tribunal has held that the claimant has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is factually incorrect. 7. I have gone through the record and minutely perused the evidence. PW-4, Shri Tara Chand, and the claimant have deposed that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle and sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. They have specifically stated that the deceased sustained injuries when he was debarking from the bus, which was driven by the driver suddenly. 8. Having said so, it is held that the claimant has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the death of the deceased. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 9. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issue No. 3. Issue No. 3: 10. The insurer has not led any evidence to the effect that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being plied without documents. Shri Praveen Kumar, Clerk-cum-Typist from the office of SDJM Chachiot at Gohar, while appearing in the witness box as RW-1 stated that he has brought the original driving licence of the driver, namely Shri Mahinder Singh, was seized property in a case titled as State versus Mahinder Singh and after perusing the photocopy, which is on the record, stated that the said copy is true and correct, is exhibited as Ext. RW-1/A. The insurer has also failed to prove that the vehicle was being plied without documents. RW-1/A. The insurer has also failed to prove that the vehicle was being plied without documents. The Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 3 against the insurer. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 11. The claimant has pleaded that deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, though, there is no such evidence on the file. It can be held, by guess work, that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.6,000/- per month as a labourer. It can be safely held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the extent of 50%, thus, has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. 12. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 58 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 6' is applicable in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 13. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 6 = Rs. 2,16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. Accordingly, the insurer is saddled with liability. 14. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside, the claim petition is granted and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization is awarded in favour of the claimant. 15. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry within twelve weeks. On deposition of the same, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant after proper identification. 16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file. Copy dasti.