JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. In terms of note of the Registry, the respondents stand duly served. But there is no representation on their behalf. Hence, they are set ex-parte. 2. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 18th October, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 9-S/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Hema Devi & others versus Sh. Lajji Ram Thakur and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lacs with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and against the respondents (for short "the impugned award"). 3. The owner-insured and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 4. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. The only dispute in this appeal is –whether the amount awarded is inadequate. The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 6. The claimants had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,65,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 7. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition by filing replies. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether Sunil Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of Van No. HP-03-3299 by respondent No. 2? ….OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? …OPR 3. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the petition? …OPR 4. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? 5. Relief.” Issue No. 1. 9. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that driver, namely, Sanjay Kumar, has driven the offending vehicle, i.e. van bearing No. HP-03-3299, rashly and negligently, and caused the accident, in which Sunil Kumar sustained injuries, was taken to IGMC, Shimla and thereafter was referred to PGI Chandigarh, wherein he succumbed to his injuries. There is no rebuttal to the said evidence. There is no rebuttal to the said evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. Issues No. 2 & 3. 10. It was also for the respondents to plead and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable and the claimants had no cause of action to file the claim petition, has failed to do so. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 2 & 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4. 11. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and was getting Rs. 100/- per day as daily allowance as driver. By guess work, it can be safely held that the monthly income of the deceased would not have been less than Rs. 4,000/- per month. 12. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident, which fact stands proved in terms of Matriculation Certificate (Ext. PW-2/B). 13. The deceased was a bachelor and 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses 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. 2,000/- per month. 14. The multiplier of ‘15’ is applicable in this case, as per the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s, Reshma Kumari’s and Munna Lal Jain’s, cases, supra read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 15. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to the amount of Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 3,60,000/-, under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 16. The claimants have placed on record receipts relating to the expenses incurred by them on travelling, amounting to the tune of Rs. 15,800/-, are held entitled to compensation to the tune Rs. 15,800/- under the head ‘travelling expenses’. 17. 2,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 3,60,000/-, under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 16. The claimants have placed on record receipts relating to the expenses incurred by them on travelling, amounting to the tune of Rs. 15,800/-, are held entitled to compensation to the tune Rs. 15,800/- under the head ‘travelling expenses’. 17. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding interest @ 8% per annum, which was to be awarded as per the prevailing rates, i.e. 7.5% per annum. 18. 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 Dev 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 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 (G 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. 19. Having said so, I deem it proper to reduce the rate of interest from 8% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 20. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- + Rs.15,800/- = Rs.3,75,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 21. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 22. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest, within a period of eight weeks from today before the Registry. 21. The amount of compensation is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 22. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith 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. 23. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.