Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Appellants-claimants have challenged the award dated 21st April, 2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 66-S/2 of 2004, titled Rita Devi & others versus Shri Dinesh Kumar & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest @ 7½% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants herein and driver, namely, Dheeraj Sharma came to be saddled with liability (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only dispute in this appeal is –whether the award amount is inadequate? 5. It is necessary to give a brief summary of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal. 6. The claimants became the victims of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by driver, Dheeraj Sharma, on 7th February, 2005, at about 8.20 p.m., near Himachal Pradesh Government Press, Chakkar Bye-Pass, Shimla-5, while driving the vehicle-Maruti Car bearing registration No.HP-34A-0645, rashly and negligently. Deceased, namely, Liaq Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to the same, leaving behind widow, two minor sons and mother. 7. The claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.14,20,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. In para-6 of the claim petition, it is specifically averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 5,000/- from agriculture and Rs. 3,000/- from daily wages work. 8. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 9. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether on 07.02.2005, at about 8.20 P.M. near H.P. Govt. Press, Chakkar by-Pass, the respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle No. HP-34-A=0645 rashly and negligently and as such caused the death of Sh. Liaq Ram? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? …OPP 3. Press, Chakkar by-Pass, the respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle No. HP-34-A=0645 rashly and negligently and as such caused the death of Sh. Liaq Ram? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the driver of vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident? …OPR 4. Whether the car in question was being driven in violation of the policy as the owner of the car was not possessing relevant documents to ply the car? …OPR 5. Relief.” 10. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver Dheeraj Sharma has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on 7th February, 2005, at about 8.20 p.m., near Himachal Pradesh Government Press, Chakkar Bye-Pass, Shimla-5 and caused the accident. Issue No. 1. 11. The claimants have proved issue No. 1. The findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are not in dispute. Accordingly, the same are upheld. 12. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 & 4. Issues No. 3 & 4. 13. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurer has not questioned the findings on issues No. 3 & 4. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues are upheld. Issue No. 2. 14. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by working as a labourer, but has fallen in an error while making assessment and determining - whether the deceased had any income from other vocation? The claimants have specifically averred in para-6 of the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture and horticulture vocation. Claimant Rita Devi has filed affidavit to this effect, which is also on record. 15. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was owner of the agricultural land, he would have been earning at least Rs.2,000/- per month from it. Claimant Rita Devi has filed affidavit to this effect, which is also on record. 15. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was owner of the agricultural land, he would have been earning at least Rs.2,000/- per month from it. Accordingly, it is held that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs. 5,000/-. 1/3rd of the monthly income is to be deducted for his personal expenses, while keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 120. Thus, it can safely be held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- per month. 16. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’. The claimant was 29 years of age at the time of accident. The multiplier of ‘16’ was to be applied as per the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case, supra. 17. In the given circumstances, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3500/- x 12 = Rs.42,000 x 16= Rs. 6,72,000/-, under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 18. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.20,000/- under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affection’ and Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’, and the same are upheld. 18. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,72,000/- + Rs.20,000/- +10,000/- total amounting to Rs. 7,02,000/-. 19. Respondent No. 2 stands saddled with liability as per the impugned award. The said finding is not in dispute. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 is directed to satisfy the award amount. 21. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is enhanced. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 21. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.