JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of a award dated 12th March, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II) Shimla, H.P., hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 2-S/2 of 2007, titled Smt. Hira Devi & others versus M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, whereby the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability, for short ‘the impugned award’. 2. The claimants and the insurer have questioned the impugned award. Thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this judgment. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the following two counts: 1. That the owner and driver have not been arrayed as party respondents in the claim petition; 2. that the amount of compensation is on the higher side. 4. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Heard. 6. The claimants had filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that deceased Karam Chand was traveling in vehicle i.e. Maruti Zen bearing registration No. HP-51A-1271, which was being driven by driver-cum-owner, namely, Jagdish Chand, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. It is also averred in the claim petition that in the said accident, driver-cum-owner Jagdish Singh also died. 7. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Karam Chand died on 30.06.2006 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-51A-1271 by one Jagdish Singh? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, what amount the petitioners are entitled to? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? ….OPR 4. Whether the vehicle No. HP-51A-1271 was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ….OPR 5. Whether the driver of vehicle No. HP-51A-1271 was not having valid and effective driving licence? …OPR 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR 7. Relief.” Issue No. 1. 9. The parties have led evidence. Whether the vehicle No. HP-51A-1271 was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ….OPR 5. Whether the driver of vehicle No. HP-51A-1271 was not having valid and effective driving licence? …OPR 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR 7. Relief.” Issue No. 1. 9. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the offending vehicle was being driven by driver-cum-owner, namely, Jagidish Singh, rashly and negligently, caused the accident, in which the said driver and Karam Chand, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. There is no dispute on the said findings. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 10. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 6. 11. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer argued that the claim petition was not maintainable, is devoid of any force for the following reasons. Issue No. 3. 12. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has gone a sea change and sub-section (6) to Section 158 and sub-section (4) to Section 166 of the Act have been added, whereby the Claims Tribunal can treat report of accident forwarded to it under Section 158 (6) of the Act as an application for compensation. The fact that the owner has passed away and the offending vehicle was insured, is not in dispute. Thus, the argument that the owner was to be a party respondent in the claim petition, is irrelevant. 13. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 3. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on said issues are upheld. Issue No. 4 to 6. 14. The onus to prove issues No. 4 to 6 was on the insurance company, has not led any evidence, thus failed to discharge the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 4 to 6 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 15. Issue No. 4 to 6. 14. The onus to prove issues No. 4 to 6 was on the insurance company, has not led any evidence, thus failed to discharge the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 4 to 6 are upheld. Issue No. 2. 15. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘13’, because admittedly, the age of the injured was 46 years at the time of accident and the multiplier of ‘11’ 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, 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. 16. In para 10 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has held that the monthly income of the deceased was about Rs. 8,000/- , which appears to be reasonable. There is evidence on the record that the deceased was an agriculturist, was doing some other vocations also, and was dealing in apples. 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/- and the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings. 17. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and assessed the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 64,000/- per annum in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments, supra. 18. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to the tune of Rs. 64,000/- x 11 = Rs. 7,04,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 19. Keeping in view the recent judgments of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, is also awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ in favour of the claimants. 20. 64,000/- x 11 = Rs. 7,04,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 19. Keeping in view the recent judgments of the Apex Court, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, is also awarded under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ in favour of the claimants. 20. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, is on the lower side. 21. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 ; Satosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 ; Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 433 , and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 434 , and discussed by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 256 of 2010, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Smt. Indiro and others, being the lead case, decided on 19.06.2015. 22. Having said so, I deem it proper to enhance the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 23. Viewed thus, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,04,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- total amounting to Rs. 7,44,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 24. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 25. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 24. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 25. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. The excess amount, if any, be refunded to the insurance company through payees’ cheque account or by depositing it in its bank account. 26. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. 27. Send down the records after placing copies of the judgment on both the files of the Tribunal.