Judgment : Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral) In this petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, insurer-petitioner has assailed the award dated 19.5.2009, passed in Petition No.35-S/2 of 2007, titled as Joginder Kaur v. Ganga Ram and others, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby a sum of Rs.15,85,000/- stands awarded to respondents No.1 to 4 – claimants, hereinafter referred to as the claimants. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the award, on a limited point, requires modification, in view of perversity and illegality with regard to findings on the question of monthly income of Sunil Kumar (deceased). 3. As a result of road accident, which took place on 11.8.2007, Sunil Kumar died on 14.8.2007, leaving behind his legal heirs and dependents (present claimants). The deceased was hit with vehicle bearing No.HP-15-6844, driven by Ramzan (respondent No.6 herein), owned by Ganga Ram (respondent No.5 herein) and insured with the present petitioner. 4. Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the death was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation if so the amount thereof as to by whom to be paid? OPP 3. Whether the terms and conditions of the insurance have been violated by the respondents No.1 and 2 as alleged the effect thereof? OPR-3 4. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-3 5. Relief. 5. Having perused the testimonies of material witnesses, including Lakhvir Singh (PW-2), I am of the considered view that claimants have proved rash and negligent act and conduct on the part of the driver of the said vehicle. FIR was also registered against the driver. That Sunil Kumar died as a result of such accident also stands proved on record. 6. That the vehicle was insured with the present petitioner is not in dispute. That driver was holding a valid driving licence (Ex. RW-1/A) also stands proved on record. Also, there is nothing on record to establish breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, liability of the present petitioner cannot be disputed. 7. 6. That the vehicle was insured with the present petitioner is not in dispute. That driver was holding a valid driving licence (Ex. RW-1/A) also stands proved on record. Also, there is nothing on record to establish breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, liability of the present petitioner cannot be disputed. 7. On the question of compensation (Issue No.2), Tribunal has taken loss of monthly income of the deceased, for the purposes of determination of compensation to be Rs.6,666/- and by applying a multiplier of 18, awarded compensation in the following manner: Loss of Estate : 14,40,000/- Medical Treatment : 25,000/- Transportation : 10,000/- Funeral Expenses : 10,000/- Loss of Consortium : 50,000/- Love and Affection : 50,000/- 8. One finds that the monthly income of the deceased, as per Salary Certificate (Ex. PW-1/A) is Rs.5,518/-. Deceased, who was a trained electrician, was employed with M/s Secure Meters Ltd., Barotiwala, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. There is nothing on record to establish that he was having additional income by doing private work. As such, Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month and for the purpose of determination of compensation to be Rs.6,666/-. In fact, monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,518/- and as such, dependent income of the deceased, for the purposes of compensation, had to be taken as Rs.5,518 –1839 = Rs.3,679/-. 9. At the time of accident, age of the deceased was 29 years and as such multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. Thus, the total compensation for loss of income has to be Rs.7,50,516/-. However, I find that amount towards loss of consortium and love & affection of Rs.50,000/- on each count, so determined by the Tribunal, is on the lower side. Claimants are minor children, widow and the mother of the deceased. Children have to not only incur expenses for their education and marriage, but one finds that they are deprived of love & affection and protection of their father, for the rest of their life. As such, amount of Rs.50,000/-, on both the heads, i.e. consortium and love & affection, shall stand enhanced and substituted with Rs.1,50,000/-, on each count. Children have to not only incur expenses for their education and marriage, but one finds that they are deprived of love & affection and protection of their father, for the rest of their life. As such, amount of Rs.50,000/-, on both the heads, i.e. consortium and love & affection, shall stand enhanced and substituted with Rs.1,50,000/-, on each count. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for the following compensation: Loss of Estate : 7,50,516/- Medical Treatment : 25,000/- Transportation : 10,000/- Funeral Expenses : 10,000/- Loss of Consortium : 1,50,000/- Love and Affection : 1,50,000/- Total : 10,95,916/- As such, petition stands partly allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.