JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23rd July, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmour, District at Nahan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. No. 95-MAC/2 of 2006, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. Claimant Lal Singh had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of 8.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The respondents resisted and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of their objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Kamal Bahadur died on account of the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident involving truck Canter No. HP-16-1492 being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner on dated 04-6-2005 at about 6.45 p.m. at place Karganu under Police Station, Rajgarh, as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner being L.R. of deceased is entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? …OPR-3 4. Whether the truck was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? ….OPR-3 5. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? …OPR-3 6. Relief.” 5. The claimant has examined Shri Balbir Singh (PW-1) and Shri Sanju (PW-3) and also appeared himself in the witness box as PW-1. The insurer has examined Shri Tota Ram as RW-1. Issue No. 1. 6. The Tribunal has held that the claimant has failed to prove that driver, namely, Heeru Ram had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the relevant time and decided issue No. 1 against the claimant. 7. The claimant has led evidence and proved that driver, namely, Heeru Ram, has driven the offending vehicle i.e. Truck Canter bearing registration No. HP-16-1492, rashly and negligently, on 4.6.2005, at about 6.45. p.m. at place Karganoo. 7. The claimant has led evidence and proved that driver, namely, Heeru Ram, has driven the offending vehicle i.e. Truck Canter bearing registration No. HP-16-1492, rashly and negligently, on 4.6.2005, at about 6.45. p.m. at place Karganoo. FIR No. 68 of 2005, dated 04.06.2005, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver in Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. and final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against him before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The respondents have not led any evidence. Thus, the same has remained unrebutted. Having said so, it is proved that the driver has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, at the relevant point of time and caused the accident. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and the findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issue are set aside. Issues No. 3 to 5 8. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5. 9. It was for the insurer to prove that the claim petition is not maintainable, the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the claim petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 & 2. It has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. However, the insurer has examined Shri Tota Ram as RW-1, who has failed to prove that the driver has driven the offending vehicle in collusion with anyone or that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time. The copy of driving licence is exhibited as Ext. R-A on record, which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, issues No. 3 to 5 are decided in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. Issue No. 2. 10. Now the question is, to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to. 11. Claimant, Lal Singh has deposed before the Tribunal that deceased Kamal Bahadur was his son; was of the age of 22 years at the time of accident; was a bachelor, was earning Rs. 2500/- per month as Conductor and Rs. 100/- per day, when he used to be on tour. 11. Claimant, Lal Singh has deposed before the Tribunal that deceased Kamal Bahadur was his son; was of the age of 22 years at the time of accident; was a bachelor, was earning Rs. 2500/- per month as Conductor and Rs. 100/- per day, when he used to be on tour. By exercising the guess work, it can be safely held that the monthly income of the deceased would not have been less than Rs.3,000/- at the relevant time. 50% was to be deducted towards his personal expenses, 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 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. Thus, it can be safely held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month. 12. 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 the judgments, supra. 13. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to the tune of Rs. 1500/- x 12 = Rs.18,000 x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 14. The factum of insurance is admitted. Accordingly, I deem it proper to saddle the insurer-insurance company with the liability. 15. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-. 16. The insurer is directed to deposit the award amount before the Registry of this Court within six weeks from today. In default, the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is to be paid by the insurer from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. On deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimant through payees’ account cheque or by paying the same in his account. 17. It is made clear that the amount paid by owner-insured Davinder Singh, as no fault liability, is awarded as cost in favour of the claimant. 18. On deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimant through payees’ account cheque or by paying the same in his account. 17. It is made clear that the amount paid by owner-insured Davinder Singh, as no fault liability, is awarded as cost in favour of the claimant. 18. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside, and the appeal stands disposed of. 19. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.