JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 20th September, 2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, H.P. (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 128 of 2009, titled Smt. Kirana & others vs. Paras Ram & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.16,60,120/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has raised the following three points. 1. That the accident was outcome of contributory negligence; 2. That the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same under the influence of alcohol; and 3. That the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the compensation and awarded excessive compensation. Point No.1 5. I have gone through the evidence. The claimants have specifically pleaded and proved that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently and caused the accident. There is not an iota of evidence that it was case of contributory negligence. PW-3 HC Devinder Kumar has specifically given the events as to how the accident had taken place and the driver of the offending vehicle has not questioned the same. I wonder how the insurer can question the said findings, are against the driver. It was for the driver to question the same, has not questioned the same. It was also not the case of the insurer that there was collusion between the driver, owner and the claimants. Having said so the first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant fails. The Tribunal has rightly determined issue No.1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. Point No.2 6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the accident was caused due to the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and caused the accident as such, has not led any evidence to prove the same. The insurance policy Ext. Point No.2 6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the accident was caused due to the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and caused the accident as such, has not led any evidence to prove the same. The insurance policy Ext. RX is not containing such terms and conditions. This Court in FAO (MVA) No.18 of 2009 titled Managing Director, HPMC Nigam Vihar Versus Naresh Kumar and others, has laid down the same principles of law. It is apt to reproduce paras 15 to 18 of the said judgment herein. “15. The learned counsel for the insurance company has relied upon the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the owner has committed willful breach. The condition No. 2 (c) of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy read as under: “The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of: (a) …..….. (b) …..……. (c) any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.” [Emphasis added] 16. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was under the state of intoxication with the knowledge and consent of the insured. No such evidence has been led by the insurer that the owner was accompanying the driver and driver had taken the alcohol with the knowledge and consent of the insured. In the given circumstances, how the Tribunal has exonerated the insurer, is not forthcoming. 17. This Court in Khem Chand versus Smt. Uma Devi and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 1, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para-4 of the judgment herein:- “4. The law is very well settled that a claim which falls within the purview of an Act policy i.e. a liability falling within the ambit of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) can only be contested by the Insurance Company on the grounds available to it under Section 149 of the Act. It is not permitted to contest the proceedings on any other grounds. It is not permitted to contest the proceedings on any other grounds. Intoxication of the driver is not a ground available to the Insurance Company under Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the liability, which is statutory under Section 147 of the Act, has to be satisfied by the insurer. It may be clarified that in case the insurer in addition to the liability which it is bound to cover under the Act covers other liability then in case of such extended liability, it may raise the defences available to it as per terms of the policy, but as far as statutory liability is concerned, the insurer has no authority to incorporate any term in the policy which is not contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been permitted to raise this defence and it could not be permitted to recover the awarded amount from the insured.” 18. This ground is not available to the insurer in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act.” 7. Applying the test, this point also fails Point No.3. 8. Though the insurer has not sought permission to contest the claim petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), but while going through the impugned award, it appears that the amount is excessive for the following reasons. 9. Admittedly, the deceased was working as Sales Executive with Jagatjit Industries and his gross salary at the time of accident was Rs.8,700/- per month, which stands duly proved by salary certificate Ext.PW-4/B. 1/3 was to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, it can be safely held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month. The age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident thus, the multiplier of ‘16’ was rightly applied by the Tribunal, in view of Schedule II appended to the Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case tilted as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 10. 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,000x12x16= Rs.11,52,000/- under the head loss of dependency. 11. In addition a sum of Rs.10,000/- each is awarded in favour of the claimants under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’, and ‘funeral expenses. 12. In view of the above discussion, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.11,52,000/- + Rs.40,000/- (Rs.11,92,000/- in all), alongwith interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 14. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the impugned award and the excess amount, if any deposited, be released in favour of the appellant-insurer through payee’s account cheque, after proper identification. Cross Objections No.153 of 2013. 15. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the cross objections also stand disposed of. 16. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.