JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and award, dated 26th May, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1st), Solan, District Solan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in Petition No. 62S/2 of 2009, titled as Smt. Bimla Devi and another versus Sh. Phulena Yadav and others, whereby compensation to the tune of 11,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-insurer has called in question the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insured argued that another claim petition arising out of the same accident, being Claim Petition No. 44S/ 2 of 2009, titled as Balak Ram and another versus Gullu Transport Company and another, was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., whereby compensation to the tune of 6,32,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit was awarded and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery. The said award was subject matter of FAO No. 517 of 2015, titled as ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance versus Sh. Balak Ram Chauhan and others, came to be determined by this Court vide judgment and order, dated 15th July, 2016, in terms of which the claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of 6,06,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and it was held that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability with right of recovery. Further argued that in this case also, right of recovery was to be granted, which has not been granted and the owner-insured is caught by principle of resjudicata, and that the amount awarded is excessive. He has made available certified copy of judgment in FAO No. 517 of 2015 (supra) across the Board, made part of the file. 5. Both the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer are tenable and forceful for the following reasons: 6. He has made available certified copy of judgment in FAO No. 517 of 2015 (supra) across the Board, made part of the file. 5. Both the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer are tenable and forceful for the following reasons: 6. The driver, namely Shri Phulena Yadav, had driven the truck, bearing registration No. RJ-14-GA-4122, rashly and negligently on 6th March, 2009, near Shoghi, District Shimla, caused the accident, which has given birth to two claim petitions, i.e. Claim Petition No. 44S/ 2 of 2009, titled as Balak Ram and another versus Gullu Transport Company and another (subject matter of FAO No. 517 of 2015) and Claim Petition No. 62S/2 of 2009, titled as Smt. Bimla Devi and another versus Sh. Phulena Yadav and others (subject matter of the appeal in hand). 7. This Court has already upheld the award made in the claim petition, subject matter of FAO No. 517 of 2015, so far it relates to granting of right of recovery in favour of the appellant-insurer, but, in the case in hand, right of recovery has not been granted on the ground that the insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. It is apt to record herein that this Court has upheld the right of recovery granted in favour of the insurer in a case arising out of the same accident. The parties are governed by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, it is held that the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery. 9. The deceased was a student and was also working as a Supervisor with Shri Mohan Singh Chauhan, Government Contractor, who appeared in the witness box and stated that he was paying 8,000/- per month to him as salary. Thus, there is proof on the file that the deceased was earning 8,000/- per month and while granting compensation by using multiplier method, the income, as it is proved, has to be taken into account. Thus, there is proof on the file that the deceased was earning 8,000/- per month and while granting compensation by using multiplier method, the income, as it is proved, has to be taken into account. The deceased was a bachelor, thus 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses in view of the law 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 SCC 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. Thus, it is held that the claimants have suffered loss of dependency to the tune of 4,000/- per month. 10. The deceased was 21 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15' in view of Sarla Verma's and Reshma Kumari's cases (supra) read with the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”). 11. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to 4,000/- x 12 x 15 = 7,20,000/- under the head 'loss of income/dependency'. 12. The Tribunal has awarded 25,000/on account of loss of love and affection including funeral expenses, which is maintained. 13. Having said so, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of 7,20,000/- + 25,000/- = 7,45,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization and insurer is saddled with liability with right of recovery from the owner-insured. 14. 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 read with this judgment through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 15. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the insurer through payee's account cheque. 16. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove, and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.