JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Claimant-Master Nitish Kumar had filed two Claim Petitions i.e. M.A.C. Petitions No. 17-S/2 of 2010 & 18-S/2 of 2010, both titled as Master Nitish Kumar versus Managing Director, HRTC, and another, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, (for short ‘the Tribunal), for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- each, in both the claim petitions, on account of death of his parents. 2. The aforesaid claim petitions came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide two different awards dated 21.04.2012, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- each in both the claim petitions, was awarded in favour of the claimant, for short ‘the impugned awards’. 3. Both these appeals are outcome of the one accident, thus I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 4. The respondents have not questioned the impugned awards, on any count. Thus, the same have attained finality, so far these relate to them. 5. The claimant has questioned the impugned awards on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 6. Thus, the only question to be determined in these appeals is-whether the amount awarded is adequate? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons: FAO No. 434 of 2012 7. All the facts are not admitted. As per copy of the Pariwar Register (Ext. PW-3/A), the age of deceased Nisha (mother) was 31 years at the time of accident. 8. The claimant has pleaded in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/-, but has failed to prove the same. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lump sum, which is not legally correct for the following reasons. 9. Deceased was a housewife. By guess work, it can be safely held that the monthly income of the deceased would not have been less than Rs. 6,000/-. 10. 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, 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, after deducting 1/3rd amount, it is held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month. 11. The multiplier of ‘15’ is applicable in this case, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ‘the Act’ read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in view of the judgments, 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. 12. Thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 7,20,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 13. The claimant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, i.e. Rs. 20,000/-, under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 14. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- = Rs. 7,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. FAO No. 435 of 2016. 15. Admittedly, the deceased was 36 years of age at the time of accident, was an orchardist by profession. 16. The claimant has pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, but has failed to prove the same. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lump sum to the claimant for the following reasons. 17. By guess work, it can be safely held that the deceased would not have been earning less than Rs. 6,000/- per month. 18. 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, while keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s and Reshma Kumari’s cases, supra. Accordingly, after deducting 1/3rd amount, it is held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month. 19. 18. 1/3rd is required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, while keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s and Reshma Kumari’s cases, supra. Accordingly, after deducting 1/3rd amount, it is held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month. 19. The multiplier of ‘15’ is applicable in this case, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s, Reshma Kumari’s cases, supra and case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 20. Thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 7,20,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 21. The claimant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, i.e. Rs.20,000/-, under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 22. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- = Rs. 7,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 23. The amount of compensation is enhanced in both the claim petitions and the impugned awards are modified, as indicated above. 24. The respondents are directed to deposit the award amount alongwith interest, within a period of six weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in his account. 25. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. 26. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's file.