JUDGMENT : 1. These CIMAs have arisen out of a common judgment and award, involving common questions of law and facts; therefore, same were considered and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These three appeals are directed against the awards passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in three different claim petitions (File Nos. 146/claim, 290/claim and 247/claim) by a common judgment dated 31.10.2008, saddling the Union of India-appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs. 6,14,940 in case titled as Sabir Ali & others v. Union of India & others; Rs. 22,000 in case titled as Saleem Ali v. Union of India and others, and Rs. 7,35,000 in case titled as Mohd. Sadiq & another v. Union of India & others, with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petitions till final payments are made (for short, impugned award). Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Union of India has come up with these appeals. 3. The facts, as borne out from the record of these CIMAs, are that on 15.03.2006 both the deceased, namely, Mohd. Sadiq son of Sabir Ali and Jamal Din son of Mohd. Sadiq alias Bulli were on their way from Nagrota towards Jewel Chowk, Jammu, on a Motorcycle bearing No. JK01C-9407. Mohd. Sadiq was riding the Motorcycle, whereas Jamwal Din was the pillion rider. The said Motorcycle belonged to claimant Saleem Ali in File No. 290/claim. When they reached near Rehari Chungi, Jammu, the offending army Truck, bearing No. 04B 15800+P+7+5 TOMALS, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, struck on the wrong side of the road, hit the motorcycle and caused the accident, as a result of which both the motorcyclists died on the spot. In the accident the Motorcycle also got damaged. 4. Two claim petitions came to be filed by the dependants of the deceased and the third one was filed by the owner of Motorcycle before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation. 5. Appellant-Union of India filed objections before the learned Tribunal and contested the claim petitions. Following issues came to be framed by the learned Tribunal: “1. Whether an accident occurred on 15.03.2006 at Rehari Chungi, Jammu by rash and negligent driving of the army offending vehicle Ashoka Leyland in the hands of erring driver in which deceased Mohd. Sadiq and Jamal Din sustained fatal injuries? Following issues came to be framed by the learned Tribunal: “1. Whether an accident occurred on 15.03.2006 at Rehari Chungi, Jammu by rash and negligent driving of the army offending vehicle Ashoka Leyland in the hands of erring driver in which deceased Mohd. Sadiq and Jamal Din sustained fatal injuries? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners in each case are entitled to the compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief? OP Parties” 6. Claimants were directed to lead evidence. Besides claimants Sabir Ali, Mohd. Sadiq and Saleem Ali, the other witnesses examined were PWs Ghulam Rasool, Farakat Ali and Raju. Appellant-Union of India examined RWs Tashi Sepoy and Naik Ambu D. Saidiak in rebuttal. 7. Sabir Ali, father of deceased Mohd. Sadiq, deposed that the deceased was his second son and was having his own shop under the name and style of Halal Meat Shop at Jewal Chowk, Jammu. He further deposed that the deceased was bachelor and was looking after the household expenditure. PW Sabir Ali also deposed that his wife has died. 8. Mohd. Sadiq, father of deceased Jamal Din, deposed that the deceased was selling meat at Subash Nagar and was contributing Rs. 6/7 thousand per month for household expenditure. He further deposed that he was also working with the deceased. 9. PW Farakat Ali deposed that he knew both the deceased and both were 22 years of age at the time of accident. He further deposed that deceased Mohd. Sadiq used to sell meat at his own shop at Company Bagh, whereas deceased Jamal Din was working at the shop of deceased Mohd. Sadiq. A. CIMA No. 63/2009 10. In this case the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- in favour of claimants on account of death of their son Jamal Din in the aforementioned accident. 11. A perusal of the Judgment and award of learned Tribunal reveals that Mohd. Sadiq, father of deceased, deposed before it that his son Jamal Din was working at Subash Nagar (Jammu) and he was also working with his deceased son. Whereas, PW Farakat Ali deposed that deceased Jamal Din was working at the shop of deceased Mohd. Sadiq at Company Bagh Jewel Chowk (Jammu). He further deposed that Mohd. Sadiq was doing the business of selling meat. Whereas, PW Farakat Ali deposed that deceased Jamal Din was working at the shop of deceased Mohd. Sadiq at Company Bagh Jewel Chowk (Jammu). He further deposed that Mohd. Sadiq was doing the business of selling meat. However, against Column-4 of the claim petition, filed before the learned Tribunal, it has been mentioned that deceased Jamal Din was a Salesman of meat at the time of accident. Against Column-5, i.e., name and address of the employer, again it has been mentioned that deceased Jamal Din was performing the job of Salesman of meat; meaning thereby deceased Jamal Din had no employer. But, when one goes through the statement of PW Farakat Ali, he has specifically deposed that deceased Mohd. Sadiq was the employer of deceased Jamal Din, as Jamal Din was working at the shop of Mohd. Sadiq at Company Bagh, Jewel Chowk. Whereas, father of deceased Jamal Din has deposed before the learned Tribunal that deceased was working at Subash Nagar (Jammu) and he was also working with the deceased. Thus, there were material contradictions between the statements of important witnesses and the claim petition filed by the parents of deceased Jamal Din. 12. Further, if the Court believes the statement of Farakat Ali, an independent witness produced by the claimants-respondents, it means deceased Jamal Din was working at the shop of Mohd. Sadiq at Company Bagh, Jewel; meaning thereby deceased Mohd. Sadiq was the owner and Jamwal Din was working under him being his employee. Both were 22 years of age at the time of accident. However, the learned Tribunal took the monthly income of deceased Mohd. Sadiq at Rs. 5000/- and deceased Jamal Din at Rs. 6000/-; meaning thereby the employee was getting more than the employer. It is not understandable that how the learned Tribunal analyzed and arrived out about the monthly income of both the deceased Mohd. Sadiq and Jamal Din in absence of any evidence regarding their monthly income, that too when there were material contradictions between the statements of important witnesses and the claim petition filed by the parents of deceased Jamal Din. These important aspects of the matter have been completely ignored by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court after taking judicial note of these facts comes to the conclusion that under no circumstances the income of employer can be less than that of employee. 13. These important aspects of the matter have been completely ignored by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court after taking judicial note of these facts comes to the conclusion that under no circumstances the income of employer can be less than that of employee. 13. Further, the age of Jamal Din was 22 years at the time of accident. At the time of filing of the claim petition, the age of Khursheeda Begum and Mohd. Sadiq, parents of deceased Jamal Din was 38 years and 40 years respectively. There is no age proof of claimants in the file. While applying multiplier, the age of deceased along with the age of claimants has to be taken into consideration for awarding just and appropriate compensation. The basic principle is, the more the age of claimants, the lesser multiplier would apply. 14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it seems that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head loss of dependency is on higher side. Keeping in view the facts that both the deceased were 22 years of age at the time of accident, deceased Jamal Din was a salesman, selling meat at the shop of deceased Mohd. Sadiq, it is held that deceased Jamal Din was not earning more than rupees five thousand per month at the time of accident. After deducting 1/3rd as his personal expenses, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,333/- per month (Rs. 39,996/- per annum). While applying multiplier 15, the amount under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,99,940/-. Learned Tribunal has also fallen in error in awarding Rs. 15000/- under the head funeral expenses. Keeping in view the Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act and the inflation factor, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 5000/- under the head funeral expenses. 15. The impugned award is, accordingly, modified and the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,04,940/- (5,99,940 + 5000) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. B. CIMA No. 62/2009 16. In this case the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation Rs. 6,14,,940/- in favour of claimant on account of death of his son Mohd. Sadiq in the aforementioned accident. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in awarding Rs. B. CIMA No. 62/2009 16. In this case the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation Rs. 6,14,,940/- in favour of claimant on account of death of his son Mohd. Sadiq in the aforementioned accident. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in awarding Rs. 5,99,940/- by the learned Tribunal in favour of claimant under the head loss of dependency. However, the learned Tribunal has also fallen in error in awarding Rs. 15000/- under the head funeral expenses. Keeping in view the Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act and the inflation factor, the claimant is held entitled to Rs. 5000/- under the head funeral expenses. 17. The impugned award is, accordingly, modified and the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,04,940/- (5,99,940 + 5000) along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. C. CIMA No. 64/2009 18. In this case the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 22,000/- in favour of claimant on account of damage caused to his motorcycle in the aforementioned accident. 19. I have gone through the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal and the documents on the file. 20. PW Saleem Ali deposed that he was the owner of Motorcycle which he had purchased from one Mohd, Sheikh. 21. PW Raju deposed that he repaired the Yamaha 1998 Model Motorcycle of claimant-Saleem Ali, which had got damaged in the accident and he charged Rs. 22,495/-. He further deposed that the value of motorcycle was about Rs. 25/30 thousand. He also deposed that he did not issue the original bills as he did not have CST number. 22. It seems that the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding Rs. 22,000/- in favour of claimant-Saleem Ali on account of damage caused to his motorcycle in the aforesaid accident. What methodology the learned Tribunal has applied in awarding the said amount is not forthcoming. 23. Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that Yamaha Motorcycle was of 1998 model, i.e., when the accident took place the motorcycle was 8 years old and its value must have depreciated to below 50% of the actual amount. What methodology the learned Tribunal has applied in awarding the said amount is not forthcoming. 23. Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that Yamaha Motorcycle was of 1998 model, i.e., when the accident took place the motorcycle was 8 years old and its value must have depreciated to below 50% of the actual amount. It has further failed to appreciate that the motorcycle was of 2nd hand which the claimant claims to have purchased from one Fiyaz Ahmed Zarger as per the affidavit attached with the claim petition. Not only this, the claimant did not get the loss assessed by any surveyor being an expert to assess the exact damage caused to the motorcycle nor the claimant produced the original bills of repairing before the learned Tribunal. As per the deposition of PW Raju, who repaired the motorcycle, the value of motorcycle was about 25 to 30 thousand and he charged Rs. 22,495/- as repairing charges. The claimant also claims that he had purchased the motorcycle for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. It has also not come on the record of claim petition nor any of the witnesses deposed that the motorcycle had completely damaged in the said accident. Further, charging of Rs. 22,495/- for repairing the motorcycle or for that matter awarding Rs. 22,000/- by the learned Tribunal cannot be taken into consideration without first considering the depreciation factor. Therefore, in absence of these material facts, awarding of Rs. 22,000/- by the learned Tribunal seems to be on higher side. In these circumstances and considering the depreciation factor, I take the value of motorcycle at the time of accident at Rs. 27,000/-. Assuming there was 70% damage caused to the motorcycle, then the loss suffered by the claimant-Saleem Ali would have been to the tune of Rs. 18,900/-. Accordingly, the award is modified by holding that claimant-Saleem Ali would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 18,900/- on account of damage caused to his motorcycle in the said accident along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 24. Awards are, accordingly, modified as indicated above. Let the amount be released in favour of claimants in all the three claim petitions in terms of the conditions as laid down in the impugned award after proper verification and identification. 25. Disposed of along with connected CMA(s), if any.