Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-insurer has called in question the award, 9th January, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, Camp at Karsog (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 80 of 2002, titled as Smt. Rama Devi and others versus Smt. Banti Devi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,95,854/- with interest @ 7½% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimants, driver-cum-owner/insured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. Brief facts: 3. The claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is averred in the claim petition that deceased, namely Shri Nand Lal, became victim of the motor vehicular accident on 30th November, 2000, at about 11.45 a.m. at Mumail, which was caused by driver namely Shri Ashok Kumar, while driving the offending vehicle, i.e. Maruti Car, bearing registration No. HP-30-0146, rashly and negligently, deceased sustained injuries, remained under treatment, spent a huge amount of his treatment, details of which are given in the claim petition alongwith the bills/vouchers and later on, succumbed to the injuries. 4. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether deceased Nand Lal died on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident involving Maruti Car No. HP-30-0146 on 30-11-2000 at place Mumail on account of the rash and negligent driving of its driver Ashok Kumar (since deceased) as alleged? 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 having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 4. Relief." 6. The claimants have examined Dr. Girish Kumar as PW-1, Dr. Prakash Verma as PW-2, Shri Shyam Lal as PW-3 and one of the claimant, namely Smt. Rama Devi, herself appeared in the witness box as PW-4. OPR 4. Relief." 6. The claimants have examined Dr. Girish Kumar as PW-1, Dr. Prakash Verma as PW-2, Shri Shyam Lal as PW-3 and one of the claimant, namely Smt. Rama Devi, herself appeared in the witness box as PW-4. The owner/insured-cum-driver has not led any evidence in support of his case. The insurer has examined Dr. Sandeep Vaidya as RW-1. Issue No. 1: 7. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver, namely Shri Ashok Kumar, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 30th November, 2000, at about 11.45 a.m. at Mumail and caused the accident. The appellant-insurer and the owner/insured-cum-driver have not questioned the said findings. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 8. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issue No. 3. Issue No. 3: 9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time, has not proved the said factum. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has not even questioned the said findings while addressing the arguments. Accordingly, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 10. The claimants have placed the vouchers/bills on record. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence and the said vouchers/bills, has rightly awarded Rs.2,01,854/- under the head 'medical expenses'. 11. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants at Rs.4,000/- per month, but has fallen in an error while applying the multiplier. 12. Admittedly, the deceased was 58 years of age at the time of the accident. The multiplier applicable was 5' in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which was upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, instead of 8'. 13. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- (i.e. Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 5). The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- to the claimants under the head 'conventional charges'. 14. versus Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, instead of 8'. 13. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- (i.e. Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 5). The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- to the claimants under the head 'conventional charges'. 14. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,51,854/- (i.e. Rs.2,01,854/- + Rs.2,40,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 15. Viewed thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 16. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. Excess amount be released to the appellant-insurer through payee's account cheque. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.