JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 2nd September, 2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 16-N/11/2008, titled Smt. Sushama Devi & others versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,03,200/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants-appellants herein and against the respondents (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. Alongwith this appeal, the respondents-claimants have filed Cross Objection No. 354 of 2009, for enhancement of the compensation. 3. The driver has not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to him. Brief Facts: 4. The claimants being victims of the motor vehicular accident, had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 5. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether on 06.01.2006, at about 6.15 p.m., respondent No. 2 was driving bus and had hit the deceased Hakam Singh causing his death? ..OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form being malafide, vague and incorrect, as alleged? …OPR 4. Whether the act and conduct of the petitioners is a bar to the petition? …..PR-1 5. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action and locus standi to file the petition? ….OPR-1 6. Relief.” 7. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver, namely, Parkash Chand has driven the offending vehicle, i.e. bus bearing registration No. HP-38-2486, rashly and negligently, on 06.01.2006, at about 6.15. p.m., at village Rohr near the shop of one Sh. Lal Singh, caused the accident, in which deceased Hakam Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Issue No. 1. 8. The claimants have proved issue No. 1. p.m., at village Rohr near the shop of one Sh. Lal Singh, caused the accident, in which deceased Hakam Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Issue No. 1. 8. 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. Issues No. 3 to 5. 9. Issues No. 2 to 5 are inter-connected. However before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 5. 10. It was for the respondents to prove issues No. 3 to 5, have not led any evidence, thus have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 to 5 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, argued that the award amount is excessive. 12. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by working as a Public Distribution Helper in the H.P. State Civil Supplies Retail Shop and has rightly held the claimants entitled to the tune of Rs. 2,400/-, under the head ‘loss of dependency, after deducting 1/5th towards 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. 13. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘12’. The age of deceased was 43 years at the time of accident. Keeping in view the age of the deceased and the claimants, the multiplier of ‘14’ was applicable in this case, 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. 14. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under four heads. Keeping in view the recent judgments of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, is also awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ in favour of the claimants. 15. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest from the date of the award, which was to be awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. 15. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding interest from the date of the award, which was to be awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. Accordingly, the interest is awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition. 16. Viewed thus, a sum of Rs.4,03,200/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.4,43,200/-, is awarded in favour of the claimants, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. 17. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal and cross objections are accordingly disposed of. 18. The enhanced amount, alongwith interest, be deposited by the insurer within a period of eight weeks from today and on deposit, the amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award. 19. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.