JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 6th August, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (2), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No. 48 of 2003, titled Smt. Vijay Devi & others versus Shri Rames Ramesh Chand h & others others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,08,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants and against the owner-insured (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants had filed claim petition before the Tribunal and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Insured-owner resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of his objection. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether the scooter No. HP-38-8846 owned by the respondent No. 1 had hit the deceased on 3.5.2003, at about 8.30 a.m., at Panjahra causing his death? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to compensation from the respondent no. 1, if so, to what amount? …OPP 3. Relief.” 5. The claimant has examined five witnesses and one of the claimants Smt. Vijay Devi, also appeared in the witness box as PW-3. Owner Ramesh Chand, also appeared in the witness box as RW-1. 6. The claimants have proved that on 3.5.2003, at about 10.00 a.m., at Panjahra, Tehsil Nurpur (Kangra) offending scooter bearing registration No. HP-38-8846 belonging to owner Ramesh Chand, hit deceased, namely, Bhummu Ram, who was walking on the road side, caused the accident, in which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Issue No. 1 7. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 8. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of ‘13’ while keeping in view the age of the deceased as 45 years and after making deductions, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- and also awarded Rs.13,000/- under the other heads. Issue No. 2. 8. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of ‘13’ while keeping in view the age of the deceased as 45 years and after making deductions, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- and also awarded Rs.13,000/- under the other heads. The compensation to the tune of Rs.2,08,000/- came to be rightly awarded in favour of the claimants. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant was asked to show how the impugned award is bad, has failed to do so. However, he has filed CMP No. 943 of 2009, for leading additional evidence, is misconceived, misdirected and against the concept of granting compensation in view of the fact that the claim petition came to be decided after six years and the appeal is also pending before this Court for the last six years. Dismissed as such. 10. Learned Counsel for the claimants stated at the Bar that so far, the claimants have not received the compensation amount. 11. The compensation amount is too meager. But unfortunately, the claimants have not questioned the same. 12. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 13. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount before the Registry or before the Tribunal, within eight weeks from today. On deposition, the Registry/Tribunal is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 14. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.