JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 28th November, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.19 of 2009, titled Geetan Devi and others vs. Devinder Singh, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the owner/appellant was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. Feeling aggrieved, the owner has challenged the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 7th July, 2009, at about 4.45 p.m., deceased Tilak Raj was crushed by the Motorcycle bearing No.JK-02AE-4687, near Bus Stand, Hamirpur, being driven by the original respondent (appellant herein) rashly and negligently, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same lateron. Claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given therein. 4. The claim petition was resisted by the respondent by filing reply and following issues came to be framed:- “1. Whether the death of Tilak Raj alias Uttam Chand was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Motorcycle No.JK-02AE-4687, by its owner-cum-driver, Devinder Singh, at the relevant time, as alleged? 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” 5. The claimants examined as many as eight witnesses. One of the claimants namely, Naresh Shama, stepped into the witness box as PW-7. On the other hand, respondent Devinder Singh appeared as RW-1 and also examined one Sunil Sharma as RW-2. 6. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the evidence, allowed the claim petition and saddled the owner with the liability, as detailed above. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-owner argued that the Tribunal has wrongly saddled him with the liability as the driver/owner had not caused the accident. Though FIR was lodged against the driver, but he now stands acquitted of the charge. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-owner argued that the Tribunal has wrongly saddled him with the liability as the driver/owner had not caused the accident. Though FIR was lodged against the driver, but he now stands acquitted of the charge. Secondly, it was submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. In regard to the accident, FIR No.218, dated 7th July, 2009, was lodged at Police Station, Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P. and the same has been proved on record as Ext.PW-1/A. The challan i.e. final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. While answering issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondent/owner, the Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paragraphs 8 to 15, are borne out from the records and are accordingly upheld. 10. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, the same pertains to the quantum of compensation. The deceased was 59 years of age at the time accident. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by maintaining accounts of various persons/firms. Besides this, the deceased was also earning Rs.5,000/- per month from agricultural activities. However, the Tribunal after referring to the statements of witnesses examined by the claimants and the evidence brought on record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence meticulously in paragraphs 16 to 25 and has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd from the total income of the deceased, loss of source of dependency to the claimants, per annum, can be said to be Rs.80,000/-. 11. The deceased was 59 years of age. The Tribunal has fallen into an error in applying the multiplier of 8, instead, in view of the law expounded 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 and the 2nd Schedule attached with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, multiplier of 6 was just and appropriate and is applied accordingly. 12. 12. In view of the above discussion, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- x 6 = Rs.4,80,000/- under the head loss of source of dependency. In addition, the claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each i.e. Rs.40,000/- in all under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 13. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.5,20,000/-. 14. Having said so, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court within eight weeks from today, alongwith interest as awarded by the Tribunal, and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award. 15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.