JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Appellant-insurer has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), by the medium of the present appeal, and has questioned the award, dated 31st July, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.89 of 2005, titled Tripati Devi and others vs. Pawan Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.14,58,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants, and the insurer-appellant was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The claimants, the owner and the driver have not questioned the impugned award, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has challenged the impugned award by the medium of present appeal. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 17th August, 2005, Surender Kumar Abrol was coming from Paura Kothi to his village Kanaid on vehicle No.HP-51B-0204 and when the said vehicle reached near Matoh, the driver of the said vehicle could not control the same while reversing it, as a result of which the vehicle fell in the gorge, Surender Kumar Abrol sustained injuries and died on the spot, constraining the claimants to file the Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 of the Act, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 5. The averments contained in the Claim Petition were denied evasively by the respondents. 6. I have gone through the record and the impugned award. The Tribunal after making a detailed discussion has held and rightly so that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. During the course of hearing, no argument was advanced to show that the said findings of the Tribunal are not borne out from the records. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 7. During the course of hearing, no argument was advanced to show that the said findings of the Tribunal are not borne out from the records. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned award on three grounds, firstly that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence; secondly that the deceased, namely, Surender Kumar Abrol was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger; and thirdly that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 8. Coming to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is borne out from the records that the offending vehicle was a Jeep and falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicles. Licence of the driver has been proved on record as Ext.RD, a perusal of which discloses that the driver was competent to driver a Light Motor Vehicle. 9. This Court in FAO No.505 of 2007 and in catena of judgments, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Kulwant Singh & Ors. versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in JT 2014 (12) SC 110, has held that no “PSV” endorsement is required once the driver is having a valid licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle and such vehicle falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicles. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force and stands rejected accordingly and the findings returned by the Tribunal are upheld. 10. Coming to the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, admittedly, the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the vegetables, as discussed by the Tribunal in paragraphs 11 and 19 of the impugned award. 11. This Court in FAO No.638 of 2008, titled National Insurance Company vs. Sundri Devi and in series of judgments has held that when a person is traveling in a vehicle as owner of the goods, he cannot be said to be traveling as gratuitous passenger. 12. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.4 are also upheld. 13. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Claimants have pleaded in the Claim Petition that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 12. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.4 are also upheld. 13. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Claimants have pleaded in the Claim Petition that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, a perusal of the impugned award shows that the Tribunal has fallen in error while assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. 14. In view of the pleadings of the claimants and the evidence led, the monthly income of the deceased can be said to be Rs.10,000/-. Admittedly, the claimants are four in number. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120, 1/4th amount was to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the loss of source of dependency to the claimants can be said to be Rs.7,500/- per month. 15. The deceased, at the time of accident, was 41 years of age and the multiplier applicable was 13 in view of 2nd Schedule attached to the Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). 16. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.11,70,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 13) under the head loss of source of dependency. The amount awarded under the other heads is modified by holding that the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under the heads ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘funeral expenses’. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.12,10,000/-, (Rs.11,70,000 + Rs.40,000/-), as total compensation. The above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. 17. Having said so, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is allowed, as indicated above. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award and the balance amount, if any, deposited by the appellant-insurer be released in favour of the insurance Company through payee’s account cheque. 18. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.