JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 29th December, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 55-N/2005, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,65,500/- with interest at the rate of 7 ½ % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, (for short, “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants, insured-owners and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insurer-Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that it is not liable to satisfy the award and the award amount is not just and appropriate i.e., is excessive. 4. In order to determine the said issues, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case herein. Brief Facts: 5. The claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on the ground that driver, namely, Mehar Chand, had driven the vehicle-tractor bearing registration No. HP-38-9762, on 29.06.2005, at about 1.00 p.m., at Village Ther, P.O. Kukher, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., rashly and negligently, hit Subhash Singh, who was on the way to fields from his house, caused injuries to him, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was a Carpenter by profession, was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month and his age was 30 years at the time of accident. 6. Driver and owners, i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 in the claim petition, have not contested the same, were set ex-parte. 7. The insurer, i.e. respondent No. 4 in the claim petition, contested the same, on the ground taken in the memo of objection. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the deceased Subhash Singh died in motor accident caused on 29.6.05 at 1 P.M. on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HP-38-9762, by its driver respondent No. 1 at village Ther? …OPP 2. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the deceased Subhash Singh died in motor accident caused on 29.6.05 at 1 P.M. on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HP-38-9762, by its driver respondent No. 1 at village Ther? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? …OPR-4 4. Whether the petition is collusive between the petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2. If so, its effect? ….OPR-4. 5. Whether the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? …OPR-4 6. Relief.” 9. The claimants have examined Shavneet (PW-2) and one of the claimants, Smt. Reena Devi also appeared in the witness box as PW-1. The insurer has examined Kuldeep Raj (RW-1), Prabhat Singh (RW-2) and Anup Singh (RW-3). 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, passed the impugned award, whereby a compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,65,500/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and liability was fastened upon the insurer. 11. I have perused the impugned award and gone through the record. Issue No. 1. 12. The claimants have proved by leading evidence that driver, namely Mehar Chand, had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on 29.06.2005, at about 1.00 p.m., at Ther. The said vehicle hit Subhash Singh and caused injuries to him who succumbed to the same on the spot. No evidence has been led by the insurer to rebut the same. The driver and the owners have not questioned the same. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 13. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3, 4 & 5. Issue No. 3. 14. It was for the insurer to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, but it has failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue are upheld. Issue No. 4. 15. Issue No. 3. 14. It was for the insurer to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, but it has failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue are upheld. Issue No. 4. 15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the insurer, which it has failed to discharge. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. Issue No. 5. 16. The insurer has failed to prove that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. There is ample evidence on the record to the effect that the deceased was on his way to fields from his house at the time of accident, thus was not traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 5 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 17. The claimants have pleaded and proved that the income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It has correctly made deductions, but has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘18’. Keeping in view the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and 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, the multiplier of ‘15’ was to be applied in order to award just and appropriate compensation. Accordingly, it is held that claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- x 12 = 36,000/- x 15 = Rs. 5,40,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 18. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,40,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’, Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’, Rs. 5,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.2,500/- under the head ‘loss of estate’, total compensation amounting to Rs. 5, 57,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 19. 10,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’, Rs. 5,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.2,500/- under the head ‘loss of estate’, total compensation amounting to Rs. 5, 57,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 19. Having said so, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 20. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. The excess amount be released in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company through payees’ cheque account. 21. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.