JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 24th April, 2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 49-S/2 of 2005/2000, titled as Smt. Indira Devi and another versus Sh. Ranjeet Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,30,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the respondents and respondent No. 3 i.e. insurer was saddled with liability to satisfy the awarded amount (for short, the "impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: 2. The claimants, being victims of the vehicular accident, in which their sole bread-earner, Sat Pal while traveling in the offending vehicle-Truck No. HR-37-2885 on 5.8.2000, at about 8.15 a.m., which was being driven by Driver Babu Ram in a rash and negligent manner at Nakrari Government School, suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries at PHC Rohru, invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Claim petition was resisted and contested by the Driver, the owner and the insurer-Insurance Company. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 14.10.2003: 1. Whether deceased Sat Pal died in a truck accident bearing registration No. HR-37-2885, being driven by respondent No. 2 on account of his rash and negligent driving as alleged? .....OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether this petition is not maintainable?...OPR-3 4. Whether late Sh. Sat Pal was traveling as unauthorized/gratuitous passenger in the said truck as alleged? ...OPR-3 5. Whether the vehicle in question at the relevant time was being plied in contravention/violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question? ... OPR-3 6. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time? ...OPR-3 7. Whether the petition is collusive between the petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2? ...OPR-3 8. Whether the vehicle in question at the time of accident was being driven without any valid R.C., Route permit or fitness certificate? ...OPR-3 9. Relief. 4. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time? ...OPR-3 7. Whether the petition is collusive between the petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2? ...OPR-3 8. Whether the vehicle in question at the time of accident was being driven without any valid R.C., Route permit or fitness certificate? ...OPR-3 9. Relief. 4. Claimants have examined seven witnesses and claimants Smt. Indira Devi and Vidya Devi also appeared in the witness box. The owner and the driver of the vehicle have not led any evidence. Only the insurer has examined Shri Roop Ram in support of its defence. 5. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence on record, held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization and saddled the insurer with the liability. 6. Learned Counsel for the insurer-respondent No. 3, frankly conceded that it has not questioned the impugned award on any ground. The driver and the owner have also not questioned the same, thus the impugned award has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 7. Thus, the only question which requires consideration by this Court is-whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate or inadequate? 8. Before I deal with the issue, I deem it proper to record herein that the claim petition was filed by four claimants and during the pendency of the claim petition, claimant Jia Lal, father of the deceased, died and name of claimant Mamta was deleted from the array of the claimants. 9. Claimants have averred in the claim petition that Smt. Indira Devi and Jia Lal had lost their only son and two others, i.e. Ms. Vidya Devi and Ms. Mamta have lost their young brother and being dependents, have claimed compensation. 10. It is for the Tribunals to decide a claim petition summarily as early as possible without banking upon the niceties of law, procedural wrangles and tangles and hyper-technicalities. 11. It is also duty of the Tribunals to provide relief to the claimants in order to save them from social evils i.e. destitution and other evils, who are rendered hapless and helpless because of the accident. 12. 11. It is also duty of the Tribunals to provide relief to the claimants in order to save them from social evils i.e. destitution and other evils, who are rendered hapless and helpless because of the accident. 12. There is no dispute regarding the findings returned on issues No. 1 and 3 to 8, accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues have attained finality. 13. The only question for determination is-whether amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced or not? 14. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in error by assessing and holding the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3300/- and loss of dependency to the claimants as Rs. 2200/-. The Tribunal has also not followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 2 ACC 907 . 15. Admittedly, the deceased was 27 years of age at the time of accident and was a fruit merchant. However, without entering into the controversy what was the monthly income of a fruit merchant, it can be safely held that the income of a labourer was not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month at the relevant point of time. 16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to hold that the income of the deceased at the time of accident was not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month and would have been spending at least 1/3rd on his personal expenses. Thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3500/- per month. In terms of the Appendix of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the mandate of Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), the multiplier of 15' came to be rightly applied by the Tribunal. 17. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3500/- x 12 = Rs. 42,000 x 15= Rs. 6,30,000/- under the head "loss of dependency". The interest rate is also at the lower side accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5%. 18. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 6,30,000/- under the head" loss of dependency", Rs. 3500/- x 12 = Rs. 42,000 x 15= Rs. 6,30,000/- under the head "loss of dependency". The interest rate is also at the lower side accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5%. 18. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 6,30,000/- under the head" loss of dependency", Rs. 34,000/- under the various heads as awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award, thus total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 6,64,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 19. The insurer to deposit the balance amount/enhanced amount with interest within eight weeks. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 20. The impugned award is modified and the appeal is allowed, as indicated hereinabove. 21. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on record.