JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 12th October, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan camp at Nalagarh, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.24-NL/2 of 2007, titled Kamlesh Kumari and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.8,03,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short, HRTC), i.e. the present appellants came to be saddled with the liability, being the owners of the bus, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the HRTC filed the instant appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened it with the liability. On the other hand, the claimants challenged the impugned award by filing Cross Objections No.312 of 2010 on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 3. The driver and the conductor have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 4. Thus, two questions arise for determination in this appeal – i) Whether the driver of the offending bus had driven the bus rashly and negligently; and ii) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Hari Krishan became victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely, Hoshiar Singh, while driving the bus bearing No.HP-03B-6014, belonging to the HRTC, rashly and negligently, on 15th June, 2007. The deceased was traveling on the roof of the bus and when the bus reached near village Kishanpura, the driver gave a jerk to the bus in a high speed as a result of which the deceased fell down from the roof of the bus and suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. Thus, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 6. Respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether deceased Hari Krishan has died on account of rash/negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No.3 and 4? OPP 2. 6. Respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether deceased Hari Krishan has died on account of rash/negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No.3 and 4? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” 8. Parties led their evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence held that the driver of the offending bus, on the fateful day, had driven the offending bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident in which deceased Hari Krishan sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants- Corporation argued that since the deceased was traveling on the roof of the bus, therefore, the deceased himself was negligent and no rashness and negligence is attributable to the driver of the offending bus. 10. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-Corporation is without any basis for the simple reason that allowing a person to travel on the roof of a bus, in itself, amounts to negligence on the part of the driver and the conductor of the bus. A passenger can only be allowed to sit inside the bus, and that too, as per the seating capacity, and if the driver and the conductor, even after noticing that a person is on the roof of the bus, does not stop the bus and ask the said person to alight from the roof of the bus, it amounts to rashness and negligence of the driver. 11. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the offending bus had driven the bus rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 12. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, the deceased was a government employee and as per the salary certificate proved on record as Ext.PW-2/A, he, at the time of death, was earning Rs.10,240/- per month. Admittedly, the claimants are six in number. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd amount from the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Admittedly, the claimants are six in number. The Tribunal has fallen in error in deducting 1/3rd amount from the salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses. However, in view of the law laid down 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, 1/4th amount was to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the loss of source of dependency to the claimants can be said to be Rs.7680/- per month. 13. The age of the deceased at the time of death was 50 years and multiplier applicable was of 10. However, the Tribunal has again fallen in error in applying the multiplier of 8. 14. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled to compensation under the head loss of source of dependency to the tune of Rs.7680/- x 12 x 10 = Rs.9,21,600/-. In addition, the claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of estate’, loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’. 15. Having said so, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.9,61,600/- as compensation under the following heads: i) Loss of source of dependency Rs. 9,21,600/- ii) Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- iii) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- iv) Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- v) Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Rs. 9,61,600/- 16. The above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, alongwith up-to-date interest, in the Registry of this Court, within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the said amount in favour of the claimants, in terms of the impugned award, through their bank accounts, after proper identification. 17. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellants-HRTC is dismissed and the cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed, and stand disposed of accordingly.