JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. CMP (M) No. 1430 of 2016 in FAOST No. 20327 of 2016 1. Learned Counsel for the insurer-United India Insurance Company argued that the limitation petition be dismissed for the reason that the driver has not questioned the award dated 15th January, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, for short ‘the Tribunal’, in M.A.C. No. 164-S/2 of 2005/2004, titled Smt. Pushpa Devi & others versus The United Insurance Company & others, for short ‘the impugned award’ during his life time, on any count and now his legal representatives cannot question the same and the appellants have not explained the delay of 8 years, which has crept-in in filing the appeal. 2. The argument of the learned Counsel is devoid of any force for the reason that the claimants have already preferred an appeal before this Court within time, which was diarized as FAO No. 208 of 2008, whereby they have sought for enhancement of compensation. 3. The claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the mandate of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”), which provides for remedy of appeal. The Appellate Court has to exercise power in terms of Section 173 of the Act, read with Motor Vehicles Rules, for short ‘the Rules’. This Court is hearing first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short ‘the CPC’. 4. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case titl1ed as U.P.S.R.T.C. versus Km. Mamta & others, reported in, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 948. It is apt to reproduce para 24 of said judgment herein:- “An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence.” 5. This Court has to hold who has to satisfy the award. The insurance is admitted and the owner-insured has discharged the mandate of Section 146 of the MV Act. 6. This Court has to hold who has to satisfy the award. The insurance is admitted and the owner-insured has discharged the mandate of Section 146 of the MV Act. 6. It is worthwhile to mention here that another claim petition had arisen out of the same accident, the insurer was fastened with liability and the appeal titled as Kala Devi & others versus Bhagwan Dass Chauhan & others, reported in, 2014 ACJ 2626 was preferred. This Court has upheld the findings of the Tribunal that the insurer has to satisfy the award, was questioned by the claimants before the Apex Court in C.A. No. 9972 of 2014, reported in 2014 ACJ 2875 , came to be upheld. 7. It is a travesty of justice that in one of the claim petitions, arising out of the same accident, liability has been fastened upon the insurer and in the another, the owner-insured has been directed to satisfy the award. 8. Having said so, I deem it proper to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is disposed of. 9. Appeal is taken on Board. The Registry to diarized the same. 10. Issue notice to respondents No. 1 & 3 to 6. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate, waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate, waives the same on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 6. 11. Challenge in both these appeals is to the impugned award, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,92,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the owner-insured. 12. By the medium of FAO No. 208 of 2008, the claimants have sought for enhancement of compensation and by the medium of FAOST No. 20327 of 2016, the legal representatives of owner-insured have prayed that the insurer be saddled with liability without right of recovery. 13. The claimants, being victims of the motor vehicular accident, had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 14. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 15. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. 14. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 15. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether respondent No. 3 drove vehicle No. HP-09-A-0897 rashly and negligently and caused accident resulting in the death of Bhag Chand on 15.12.2003? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation petitioners are entitled and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether vehicle in question being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? ….OPR 4. Whether respondent No. 3 was not having effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident? …OPR. 5. Whether deceased Bhag Chand was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger? ….OPR 6. Relief.” 16. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver, namely Keshva Nand, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. TATA 207 DI bearing registration No. 09A-0897, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which deceased Bhag Chand sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Issue No.1 17. I have gone through the impugned award. There is no dispute viz-a-viz Issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 are upheld. Issues No. 3 & 4. 18. The insurer and owner-insured have not pressed these issues before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 3 & 4 are upheld. Issues No. 2 & 5. 19. Both these issues are inter-connected. Thus, I deem it proper to deal with these issues together. 20. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, appears to be on the lower side. Even, a labourer would not have been earning less than Rs.150/- per day, or Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident, roughly Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, it can safely be held that that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs.4,000/-. 21. The claimants are four in number. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, it can safely be held that that the monthly income of the deceased was not less than Rs.4,000/-. 21. The claimants are four in number. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 1/4th was to be deducted while keeping in view 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 , upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 22. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 31 years at the time of accident and the multiplier applicable is ‘16’ is rightly applied. 23. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to the tune of Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16= Rs. 5,76,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 24. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each, under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘loss of love and affections, is on the higher side. Keeping in view the recent judgments of the Apex Court, the claimants are also held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’, total amounting to Rs.40,000/-. 25. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 26. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in, (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in, 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in, (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Sin Singh & others, reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in, (2015) 4 SCC 433 and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 27. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 28. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to the total compensation to the tune of Rs.5,76,000/- + Rs.40,000/- total amounting to Rs.6,16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 29. The factum of insurance is admitted. The insurer has failed to prove that the owner-insured has committed any willful breach and deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Having said so, the insurer is saddled with liability. 30. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 31. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest, within a period of eight weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 32. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. 33. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.