JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 29th September, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. No. 11/S/2 of 2008, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,99,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer-National Insurance Company, appellant herein was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The owner, driver and the claimant have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the following three grounds: 1. The claimant has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver; 2. The claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger; 3. The compensation amount is excessive. 4. In order to return findings on the aforesaid points, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal. 5. The claimant had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is averred in the claim petition that on 5th July, 2007, the claimant was traveling in the hired vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pick-up Van bearing registration No. HP-14-A-7209, with the tomato crates, which were to be taken from village Ghalayna to Sabji Mandi Solan, for sale. The said vehicle was being driven, rashly and negligently, by driver, namely Satish Kumar Goyal and met with an accident. The claimant sustained injuries, was taken to the hospital, has suffered permanent disability. 6. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of their objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the injuries were suffered by the petitioner on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.2,as allege?…OPP 2. If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so amount thereof ?…OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the compensation if awarded, there being a valid insurance as alleged? 4. If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so amount thereof ?…OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the compensation if awarded, there being a valid insurance as alleged? 4. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, if so effect thereof? OPR-3 5 Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged, if so effect thereof? OPR-3 6 Whether the petitioner was gratuitous passenger as alleged, if so the effect thereof? OPR-3 7 Relief.” 8. The claimant has examined Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-2) and also appeared himself in the witness box as PW-1. The respondents have not examined any witness, only driver-Satish Goyal stepped into the witness box as RW-1. The claimant has placed on record the medical bills, discharge slip, taxi bills, disability certificate and other documents. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted. 9. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, held that driver-respondent No. 2 has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the relevant time and caused the accident. Issue No. 1. 10. I have gone through the claim petition. I am of the considered view that the claimant has proved that driver-Satish Goyal, has driven the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 11. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 6. Issue No. 3. 12. The Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle was insured, which is not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 4. 13. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, has not led any evidence. However, respondent No. 2-driver deposed before the Tribunal that he was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The copy of driving licence is exhibited as Ext. RW-1/D on record, which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. However, respondent No. 2-driver deposed before the Tribunal that he was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The copy of driving licence is exhibited as Ext. RW-1/D on record, which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue Issues No. 5 & 6 14. Issues No. 5 & 6 are inter-linked, thus, I deem it proper to determine both the issues together. 15. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the claimantinjured was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, has not led any evidence. Thus, it has failed to discharge the onus. However, it is apt to record herein that the claimant has specifically averred in the claim petition that he hired the offending vehicle and was traveling with tomato crates in the said vehicle. There is no rebuttal to this effect. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant was not traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Viewed thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 5 & 6 are also upheld. Issue No. 2. 16. The claimant-injured has pleaded in the claim petition that his income was Rs.15,000/- per month, at the relevant time. The Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs. 8,000/- per month. While exercising the guess work, it can be safely held that the monthly income of the deceased would not have been less than Rs.8,000/-. He has suffered 25% permanent disability, which affected his earning capacity to the extent of 50%, as held by the Tribunal in para-8 of the impugned award. The disability certificates Mark-A and Ext. PW-2/A are on record. Thus, it can safely be held that the claimant has lost source of income to the extent of 50%. 17. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘8’. Admittedly, the age of the injured was 62 years at the time of accident. The disability certificates Mark-A and Ext. PW-2/A are on record. Thus, it can safely be held that the claimant has lost source of income to the extent of 50%. 17. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘8’. Admittedly, the age of the injured was 62 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of ‘5’ was applicable in this case, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 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 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. 18. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,000 x 12 =Rs. 48,000 x 5 = Rs.2,40,000/-, under the head ‘loss of earning’/‘future income’. 19. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in awarding cost, is set aside. 20. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, is on the higher side. The amount of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was to be awarded for all heads except for future income, from the date of the claim petition and for future income, it was to be awarded from the date of impugned award. 21. Having said so, it is held that the claimant is entitled to compensation as under: i) Loss of earning i.e. future income Rs. 2,40,000/- ii) Medical expenses Rs. 14,715/- iii) Expenses of diet and attendant Rs. 20,000/- iv) For pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- v) Loss of future discomfiture and enjoyment Rs. 50,000/- vi) Transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 3,54,715/- On the aforesaid amount of compensation, interest @ 7.5% per annum is payable for all heads except for future income from the date of the claim petition and under the head ‘loss of earning/future income’, it is payable from the date of impugned award. 22. 50,000/- vi) Transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 3,54,715/- On the aforesaid amount of compensation, interest @ 7.5% per annum is payable for all heads except for future income from the date of the claim petition and under the head ‘loss of earning/future income’, it is payable from the date of impugned award. 22. 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 it in his account. The excess amount be refunded to the insurance company through payees’ cheque account or by depositing it in its bank account. 23. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of. 24. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.