JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This appeal is directed against the award and judgment, dated 16th October, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.C. No.31-S/2 of 2005, titled Sh. Satya Parkash Sharma, & others vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar & others, whereby a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle was saddled with the liability (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘7’. 5. The age of the deceased was 55 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier applicable was ‘9’ in view of Schedule-II appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the judgment 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 , which decision was upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 6. In view of the above, multiplier of ‘9’ is just and appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of dependency of the claimants to tune of Rs.3,000/- per month i.e. Rs.36,000/- per annum. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.36,000 X 9= Rs.3,24,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 7. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under various heads, which is not legally correct. In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’, and ‘funeral expenses, i.e. total amounting to Rs. 40,000/-. 8. 7. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under various heads, which is not legally correct. In view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’, and ‘funeral expenses, i.e. total amounting to Rs. 40,000/-. 8. In view of the above discussion, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.3,24000/- + Rs.40,000/- (Rs.3,64,000/- in all), alongwith interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 9. It appears that the insurer stands exonerated on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The owner has not questioned the said findings, though, the factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, at best, the right of recovery was to be granted. Accordingly, the insurer is directed to satisfy the award at the first instance with right of recovery. 10. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount in the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. On deposit, the award amount be released in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. However, the insurer is at liberty to lay a motion for recovery before the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 12. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.