JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 5th May, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, District Una, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No.3/2007, titled Smt. Balbir Kaur & others vs. Sh. Ranjeet Singh & others, whereby a sum of Rs.9,62,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7½ % per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Only the insurer has questioned the impugned award on two counts (i) that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence; and (ii) that the amount awarded is excessive. 4. Having said so, there is no dispute about the findings returned on issues No.1, 3, 4 and partly on issue No.2. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No.1, 3 and 4 are upheld. 5. Before I deal with the adequacy of compensation, I deem it proper to deal with issues No.5 and 6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. The insurer has examined Vinod Kumar RW-3, who has categorically stated, as rightly discussed in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the impugned award, that the driving licence was not fake. The insurer has not led any evidence to the effect that the insured-owner has not taken all necessary steps before engaging the driver. There is no evidence that owner has committed willful breach. Having said so, the findings returned on issues No.5 and 6 are also upheld. 6. It was pleaded and proved by the claimants that the deceased was a government employee and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.14,130/- and salary certificate (Ext. PW-2/A) do disclose that the deceased was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.14,130/- per month. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 52 years at the time of the accident. 6. It was pleaded and proved by the claimants that the deceased was a government employee and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.14,130/- and salary certificate (Ext. PW-2/A) do disclose that the deceased was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.14,130/- per month. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 52 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘8’ in view of Schedule II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the judgments made by the Apex Court in cases tilted as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 7. The Tribunal has also fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses. 1/4th was to be deducted towards the personal expenses in view of the Sarla Verma read with Reshma Kumari’s cases referred to supra. Accordingly, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.10500/-X12X8= Rs.10,08,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- under the head of ‘funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- under the head of ‘loss of happiness of married life’ and Rs.20,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’, as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The claimants have not questioned the adequacy of award. Accordingly, amount awarded by the Tribunal is upheld. 9. The insurer-appellant is directed to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court within six weeks from today, if not already deposited. On deposit, the entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 10. The appeal is dismissed alongwith all miscellaneous applications, if any.