JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 10th October, 2007, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 63 of 2005, titled as Smt. Saraswati Devi & others versus Shri Himal Chand Verma & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,42,000/- 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-respondents No. 1 to 7, herein and the insurer- United India Insurance Company was saddled with the liability (for short, the “impugned award”). Brief Facts: 2. The claimants, being victims of a motor vehicular accident, invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver-cum-owner, namely, Lokender Verma had driven the offending vehicle-maruti car bearing registration No. HP-33-8262, rashly and negligently, on 10.03.2003, during the day hours, at Pargehra near Ghatasani, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., lost control of the aforesaid vehicle; fell down from the road and caused injuries to Anuj Kumar @ Anup Kumar, who succumbed to the injuries. The claimants have also pleaded in their claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and was about 23 years of age at the time of accident. 3. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the father of deceased driver-cum-owner, legal heir of deceased driver-cum-owner and the insurer-United India Insurance Company Ltd. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Lokender Verma, was driving the maruti car bearing No. HP-33-8262 on 10.3.2003, near village Pargehra near Ghatasni, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. in a rash and negligent manner resulting in death of Anuj Kumar alias Anup Kumar as alleged? …..OPP 2 If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, as to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the driver was not holding an effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident which was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as M.V. Act, as alleged? …OPR 4. Relief.” 5. …OPP 3. Whether the driver was not holding an effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident which was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as M.V. Act, as alleged? …OPR 4. Relief.” 5. The insurer-United India Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of the compensation. 6. The claimants, father of deceased driver-cum-owner and the legal heir of deceased driver-cum-owner have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 7. The only dispute in this appeal is-whether the amount of compensation is adequate or excessive? Issues No. 1 & 3. 8. Findings on issues No. 1 & 3 are not in dispute, thus the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues are upheld. Issue No. 2. 9. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but they have not led any evidence to prove the same. 10. The Tribunal after making guess work, has rightly held in para 19 of the impugned award that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 5,000/-, but has fallen in an error in holding that that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was to be taken as Rs. 2500/- per month keeping in view the mandate of law laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 11. The Tribunal has also wrongly applied the multiplier of ’12’ while keeping in view the age of the deceased and the parents. The multiplier of ‘10’ is just and appropriate instead of ‘12’, as applied by the Tribunal, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the mandate of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s and Reshma Kumari’s cases, supra. 12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the tune of Rs. 2500x12= Rs. 30,000x10= Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head loss of dependency and Rs. 12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the tune of Rs. 2500x12= Rs. 30,000x10= Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head loss of dependency and Rs. 10,000/- under the head “loss of love and affection and funeral charges, total amounting to Rs. 3,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 13. The Registry to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions through payees account cheque. The excessive amount be released in favour of the insurer-Insurance Company. 14. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of, as indicated above. 15. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.