JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A vehicular traffic accident has given birth to these appeals, thus I deem it proper to deal with all these appeals by this common judgment. 2. These appeals are outcome of the awards made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in different claim petitions filed by the claimants for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the respective claim petitions (for short 'the impugned awards'). 3. It is averred in the claim petitions that driver, namely, Jagdish Chand, has driven the vehicle-bus bearing registration No. HP-06-2824, rashly and negligently, on 12.10.2005, near Shoolini Guest House, at about 1.30 a.m., hit a group of persons standing near vehicle-Jeep bearing registration No. HP-64-0238, parked on the extreme left side of the road with parking lights on, as a result of which, 7 persons sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The respondents resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 5. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed common issues in all the claim petitions. It is apt to reproduce the issues framed in Claim Petition No. 126-S/2 of 2005:- 1. Whether the death of deceased had been caused on account of rash/negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 2? ...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 petition is bad for misstatement of facts and concealment of material facts, if so, its effect? ...OPR-1 4. Whether the accident was cause due to rash/negligent act of driver of the Mahindra Utility and petition against respondent No. 1 is not maintainable? ...OPR-1 5. Whether Mahindra jeep was being driven in breach of the policy conditions, if so, its effect? ....OPR-4 5. Relief." 6. The parties have led evidence in all the claim petitions. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence of the drivers of the bus and jeep. Accordingly, 50% liability was fastened upon the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the HRTC') and 50% liability was fastened upon the insurer of the jeep. 8. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of the contributory negligence of the drivers of the bus and jeep. Accordingly, 50% liability was fastened upon the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the HRTC') and 50% liability was fastened upon the insurer of the jeep. 8. The claimants, owner-insured and insurer of the offending jeep and drivers of both the vehicles have not questioned any of the impugned awards, on any count, thus, all the impugned awards have attained finality, so far as the same relate to them. 9. Only, the HRTC has questioned the impugned awards on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that its driver was negligent. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant-HRTC has frankly conceded that finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident is contributory, stands proved and is not disputed, but stated that the amount awarded is excessive in all the claim petitions. Further stated, that the Tribunal has fallen in error in applying the multiplier, which is not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with Reshma Kumari & others v. Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 and prayed that amount awarded be slashed. 11. In this background, I deem it proper to deal with the claim petitions one by one. FAO No. 109 of 2008 12. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of Rs.48,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 18', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.8,64,000/-, under the head, loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.8,84,000/-. 13. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18', which is not in consonance with Sarla Verma's case, supra. The multiplier of 15' was to be applied. 13. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18', which is not in consonance with Sarla Verma's case, supra. The multiplier of 15' was to be applied. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000 x 15 = Rs.7,20,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency', Rs.15,000/- under the head 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/-. FAO No. 110 of 2008 14. The Tribunal has applied the novel method in assessing the compensation. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of accident and was ITI Diploma holder. After completing his diploma, he would have made earnings and also would have his own family after solemnizing marriage within 2-3 years. In today's scenario, even the monthly income of a labourer is not less than Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, it can safely be held that that the income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of accident. After deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, the loss of source of dependency towards the claimants can be said to be Rs.2500/- per month, in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, supra. 15. The Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 18'. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 20 years at the time of accident. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the multiplier of 16 is applicable in the present case. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.2500 x 12 = Rs.30,000 x 16 = Rs.4,80,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. FAO No. 111 of 2008 16. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of Rs.48,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 14', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,72,000/-. FAO No. 111 of 2008 16. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of Rs.48,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 14', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,72,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.6,92,000/-. 17. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 14' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, supra, needs no interference. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.6,72,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency', Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.6,92,000/-. FAO No. 112 of 2008 18. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of Rs.48,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 18', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.8,64,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.8,84,000/-. 19. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18', which is not in consonance with Sarla Verma's case, supra. The multiplier of 15' was to be applied. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000 x 15 = Rs.7,20,000/- under the head 'loss of income', Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/-. 20. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000 x 15 = Rs.7,20,000/- under the head 'loss of income', Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/-. 20. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 15', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.9,20,000/-. 21. The age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 15' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, supra, needs no interference. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.9,00,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency', Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.9,20,000/-. FAO No. 128 of 2008 22. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of Rs.55,800/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 12', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,69,600/- under the head 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.6,89,600/-. 23. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 12' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, supra, needs no interference. 23. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 42 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 12' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, supra, needs no interference. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.6,69,600/- under the head 'loss of dependency', Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.6,89,600/-. FAO No. 157 of 2008 24. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed the loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of Rs.48,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of 15', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/- under the 'head loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, thus awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/-. 25. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 15' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, supra, needs no interference. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.7,20,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency', Rs.15,000/- under the heads 'conventional charges, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'funeral and other incidental expenses, total compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/-. 26. Accordingly, the impugned awards passed in MAC Petitions No. 126-S/2 of 2005, 125-S/2 of 2005 and 123-S/2 of 2005 are modified, as indicated above and the impugned awards passed in MAC Petitions No. 124-S/2 of 2005, 122-S/2 of 2005, 121-S/2 of 2005 and 127-S/2 of 2005, are upheld. 27. The Registry is directed to release the entire compensation amount in favour of claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned awards. The excess amount be released in favour of the appellant-HRTC through cross-cheque. 28. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on each file of the claim petitions. Order accordingly.