JUDGMENT : The award dated 09.12.2002 and made in the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1193 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Trichy has been challenged in this appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, who is the second respondent in the claim petition. 2. Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has advanced his arguments on the following two grounds: (i) Liability and (ii) Quantum. 3. It is manifested from the records that on 05.05.1999, when the deceased was awaiting for catching the bus at Junction Circle Bus Stop, Tiruchirappalli, he was knocked down by Van bearing registration number T.N. 51 - 3739 belonging to the fifth respondent, which was insured with the appellant insurance company. On account of this sudden impact, the deceased had succumbed to injuries on 26.05.1999, while he was on treatment in Seahorse hospitals at Tiruchirappalli. Previously, he was given first aid treatment at Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli. 4. The claimants are the wife and children. This claim petition was contested by the appellant insurance company, who is the second respondent therein. The owner of vehicle remained exparte. 5. The first claimant was examined as PW1. During the course of her examination Ex.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On the other hand, neither oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. 6. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as Grinder at the Indian Ordnance Factory, Tiruchirappalli and was earning a sum of Rs.7,669/- per month. 7. On appreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary, the Tribunal had proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding a total amount of Rs.8,54,351/-. The appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay this amount to the claimants within a period of thirty days with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till date of deposit. 8. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandiyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company while advancing his arguments has made reference to the counter statement filed by the Insurance Company, wherein it has been contended that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident, the fifth respondent had violated the policy condition for having allowed a person to drive his vehicle without any valid driving licence. He has also submitted that if at all any award was to be passed it might be awarded as against the owner of the vehicle. But this contention was admittedly ignored by the Tribunal. 9. In order to substantiate their claim, the claimants had produced Ex.A.4 salary certificate with respect to the deceased Saminathan. A4 would go to show that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,669/- per month. The Tribunal has found that out of Rs.7,669/-, the net salary of the deceased was Rs.4,974/- and further, the Tribunal had found that out of this amount, a sum of Rs.4,000/- would have been given by the deceased to his family till his retirement. 10. The Tribunal on considering the date of birth of the deceased as 07.08.1951, based on Ex.P.4 salary certificate had determined his age at 48 at the relevant point of time. Therefore, as per II Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal had selected the multiplier of 13 to determine the loss of income. Accordingly, the Tribunal had calculated a sum of Rs.6,24,000/- towards the loss of income of the family and apart from this, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards the loss of consortium. Another amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of love and affection. Towards the medical expenses a sum of Rs.1,90,351/- was awarded. Towards transportation and funeral expenses a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded. 11. With regard to selection of multiplier 13, this Court finds that it is absolutely right as per Schedule II of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and as observed in SARLA VERMA & ORS. v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR., ((2009) 3 ACC 708 (SC)). Further, the loss of dependency was also calculated in accordance with the bounds of law. Therefore, this court is of considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal does not require the interference of this Court. 12. With the obove observation this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the award amount along with accrued interest was already deposited by the Insurance Company to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1193 of 1999. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw their share without actually filing any formal application. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the award amount along with accrued interest was already deposited by the Insurance Company to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1193 of 1999. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw their share without actually filing any formal application. The shares of the minor claimants 3 and 4/respondents 3 and 4 shall be deposited in a nationalized bank till they attains majority. The first claimant being the mother and guardian of minor claimant is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the share of minors, exclusively for their welfare. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.