JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against judgment and award dated 30.10.2013 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonch (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in a claim for compensation under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1 Act filed by legal representatives, Respondents 1 to 7 (hereinafter to be referred as the claimants), of one Mohd. Mumtaz Khan, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.02.2010. 2. Heard Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and M/s A.M. Malik and Ch. Ghulam Murtaza, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3. On 15.02.2010 the deceased was travelling by a bus bearing Registration No. JK02D-2055. The bus met with an accident at village, Ramluta on Bryani Gali-Mendhar Road. Deceased died on spot. Claimants, who comprise of wife, sons and daughter of the deceased, filed Claim application under Section 166 of the Act. Learned Tribunal after inquiry found that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending bus and, while applying the multiplier method, awarded compensation of Rs. 6, 68,000/- in favour of the claimants under following heads : 1 Loss of dependency : Rs. 6,48,000/- 2 Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- 3 Loss of Estate : Rs. 5,00/- 4 Loss of consortium : Rs. 10,000/- Total : Rs. 6,68,000/- 4. Appellant-Insurer assails the award of the learned Tribunal on the quantum of compensation only, mainly, on the ground that Claimants 2 to 7, who are major children of the deceased having no physical incapacity to earn their livelihood, cannot in law be treated as dependants of the deceased. The other ground of assail to the impugned award is that income of the deceased was not proved before the Tribunal inasmuch as no income proof was produced by the claimants and learned Tribunal erred in holding that his income was Rs. 7500/- per month. It is alleged also that learned Tribunal did not fix any date for hearing arguments in the case; and did not provide opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is contended that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased was not made in accordance with law. 5. Mr. 7500/- per month. It is alleged also that learned Tribunal did not fix any date for hearing arguments in the case; and did not provide opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is contended that deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased was not made in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that only dependants of the victim of an accident are entitled to compensation so loss of dependency suffered by a claimant is required to be proved before the Tribunal. Compensation cannot be paid to a claimant, who at the time of death of the deceased was not dependent upon him. Mr. Singh argued that Claimants 2 to 7 as at the time of his death were grown up children of the deceased so they are not entitled to any compensation. Mr. Singh sought to point out that learned Tribunal did not record any finding in regard to the dependency of Claimants 2 to 7 on the deceased. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.M. Malik, learned counsel for claimants supported the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Malik submitted that under Section 166 of the Act, all legal representative of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation irrespective of the fact whether they were dependent on the deceased or not. Mr. Malik also raised objection to maintainability of appeal on quantum of compensation by the insurer. 7. It is noticed that claimants (respondents) 2, 3, 4 and 5 are sons of the deceased and 6 and 7 are daughters. In the Claim application they have disclosed their age as 32, 28, 26, 21, 22 and 20 respectively. Having regard to the age of these claimants, the question whether they are entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' has importance and calls for consideration. A similar question has been considered by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harpreet Singh and Ors., 2015 ACJ 1922 . I, therefore, extract and quote in extenso the relevant from that judgment: "13. It is indisputable that learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier method, which is well recognised for computing the amount of compensation payable to the legal representatives/dependents of a motor accident victim under the head 'loss of dependency'. Core question thus arising is, whether multiplier method has been correctly applied by the learned Tribunal? It is indisputable that learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier method, which is well recognised for computing the amount of compensation payable to the legal representatives/dependents of a motor accident victim under the head 'loss of dependency'. Core question thus arising is, whether multiplier method has been correctly applied by the learned Tribunal? This in turn would automatically lead to determination of the question involved in this appeal. 14. The multiplier method has been explained by the Supreme Court earlier in the landmark judgments in General Manager, Kerala Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC); U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC) and recently qualified and amplified in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). 15. It may be stated, briefly, that multiplier method involves ascertainment of the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death. His annual contribution towards his dependents (claimants) depending upon their number, which is taken as 'multiplicand' and its multiplication with a figure, called 'multiplier', to be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased. 16. Some of the important principles laid down by their Lordships in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) may be stated thus (Para 9): "Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) Income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) Additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased." 17. Addition to the income where the deceased was having a permanent job, as in the case on hand, is governed by the age of the deceased (Para 11 of the report): "11.. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30 per cent if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though t Ire evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances." 18. Deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is governed by the number of the dependents/claimants (Para 14 of report) "14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra's case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practise is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (?rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (?th) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six." 19. Multiplier is to be selected and applied on the basis of the age of the deceased from Column 4 of the table given in Para 40 of the reporting in Sarla Verma's case. 20. A plain and collective reading of the principles stated by their Lordships in Sarla Verma, in particular, Para 9 and Para 14 (supra) of the reporting would render it beyond any doubt that award of compensation under the head, 'loss of dependency' is governed by the number of dependents of the deceased and not the number of legal representatives having filed the claim. Only such legal representatives of the deceased who at the time of the death were dependent upon him are relevant for calculating compensation payable under the head 'loss of dependency'. Only such claimants would be entitled to compensation under this head. 21. - 22. - 23. The legal position, thus, can be summarized that a legal representative of victim of a motor accident, who was not dependent upon the deceased, though can lay a claim for compensation, he is not entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. He would be entitled to compensation for loss to estate as well as the statutory compensation under Section 140 of the Act." 8. In order to claim compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' a duty is cast on the claimants to plead and prove before the Tribunal that he/they was/were dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death and have suffered loss on that score due to his death. In the case on hand the say of the claimants in the Claim application is that the deceased was a carpenter, he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and that he used to spend his whole income on the welfare of the claimants. It has not been stated as to how the grown up children, in particular three sons aged 26, 28 and 32, had no income of their own and were also dependent on t he income of the deceased. 9. Claimants produced two witnesses, namely, Mohd. Khursheed Khan and Anayat Ahmed before the learned Tribunal, besides Claimant No. 1, Sakina Bi, the wife of the deceased, entering the witness box. There is nothing substantial in their evidence in regard to the individual dependency or the extent of the loss suffered by a claimant. There is not even a whisper to explain as to how even the grown up sons were dependent upon the deceased as at the time of his death. Relevant in the evidence of Claimant No. 1 is that entire family was dependent upon the deceased and all the children are yet to be married. It is in the evidence of PW-Mohd. Khursheed Khan that family of the deceased has been rendered support less as they have no source of income and children are yet to be married. Relevant in the evidence of Claimant No. 1 is that entire family was dependent upon the deceased and all the children are yet to be married. It is in the evidence of PW-Mohd. Khursheed Khan that family of the deceased has been rendered support less as they have no source of income and children are yet to be married. Likewise, it is in the evidence of PW-Anayat Ahmed that family of the deceased was dependent upon the deceased. 10. The evidence led by the claimants is too scanty and insufficient to prove that even the grown up children of the deceased or some of them were dependent upon their old aged father. Grown up children normally cannot be treated as the dependents of their old aged father and to have suffered any loss of dependency due lo his death. So in order to claim compensation for loss of dependency they have to lead positive evidence to prove that they were dependent upon him The possibility of the grown up children being dependent on their old aged father may, however, arise in a case where they are still undergoing their studies or are incapacitated due to some disability or disease from earning their livelihood or, may be, there is any other special reason. Claimants are required to prove this aspect as a fact by leading evidence. 11. Impugned judgment and award on its plain reading would show that learned Tribunal has acted in a mechanical manner under an impression as if all legal representatives of victim of a fatal accident are entitled to compensation even under the head 'loss of dependency', notwithstanding whether they were dependent upon the deceased or not. The question of the loss of dependency is incorporated in Issue No. 2 framed by the learned Tribunal. A plain reading of the learned Tribunal's discourse on issue No. 2 would show, however, that, whereas, the Tribunal has dealt with the income of the deceased, deduction towards his personal and living expenses and the selection of multiplier, it has totally ignored to ascertain and identify the claimants who were dependent upon the deceased as at the time of his death. This is not the correct legal approach. It needs to be reiterated that only those legal representatives, who were dependent upon the deceased as at the time of his death, are entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. This is not the correct legal approach. It needs to be reiterated that only those legal representatives, who were dependent upon the deceased as at the time of his death, are entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. It needs to be dated that Section 168 of the Act casts a solemn duty on a Claims Tribunal to hold inquiry into the claim and determine the amount of compensation, which is just and reasonable and to specify the person(s) to whom compensation shall be made. In determining the entitlement of the claimants to compensation in death cases loss of dependency suffered by a claimant is on important factor which should not be ignored and must get specific attention and determination by the Tribunal. 12. Learned Tribunal in this case has fallen in serious error of law by granting compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' on the basis of head count of the claimants without ascertaining whether all of them were dependent upon deceased or not. That the Tribunal acted in a mechanical manner is evident from the direction that compensation payable to "minor shall be kept in fixed deposit till they attain majority", notwithstanding that all the claimants were major as at the time of filing the claim. Finding of the learned Tribunal in issue No. 2, therefore, does not sustain and is liable to be set aside. 13. Before setting aside the finding in issue No. 2 important question in regard to maintainability of this appeal raised by the learned counsel for the claimants needs to be taken up. Argument was that the insurer cannot file appeal on quantum of compensation when it neither had sought leave in terms of Section 170 of the Act before the Tribunal nor led any evidence in rebuttal. 14. Contextually, it is noticed that the driver and the owner of the offending bus did not contest the claim before the learned Tribunal. In spite of that the appellant-insurer did not seek leave of the Tribunal in terms of Section 170 of the Act that gives the insurer right to contest a claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made, that is, driver and/or owner of the offending vehicle. In spite of that the appellant-insurer did not seek leave of the Tribunal in terms of Section 170 of the Act that gives the insurer right to contest a claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made, that is, driver and/or owner of the offending vehicle. This right accrues when to the satisfaction of the Claims Tribunal there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, that is, owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. 15. Section 173 of the Act provides for the appeal against the award of a Claims Tribunal in a claim under Section 166 of the Act. There is nothing in Section 173 or any other provision in the Act that completely debars the Insurance Company from filing appeal against award of a Claims Tribunal, howsoever aggrieved it might feel. Section 173 in wider terms gives the right of appeal to 'any person aggrieved by any award of a Claims Tribunal.' Argument of learned counsel for the claimant was that when the insurer fails to avail his right under Section 170, right to appeal under Section 173 is not available to the insurer as it cannot be treated as aggrieved person as the aggrieved person may either be a claimant or the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle. The question, thus, raised precisely is, whether insurer or an offending vehicle on whom liability of satisfying the award passed against the owner (insured ) has been foisted has no independent right of appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal? Answer to this question can be found in Supreme Court Judgment in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhushan Sachdeva and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 662 . Their Lordships have held in Para 7 of the reporting: "7. In our view, the stand of the appellant that it cannot file an appeal at all before the High Court under Section 173 of the Act is based on an erroneous assumption. Their Lordships have held in Para 7 of the reporting: "7. In our view, the stand of the appellant that it cannot file an appeal at all before the High Court under Section 173 of the Act is based on an erroneous assumption. So long as the insured has not challenged the award passed against him and so long as the liability would only fall on the Insurance Company it is inequitable to deny a remedy of appeal to the Insurance Company. We will now see whether Section 173 contains any bar against filing such appeal by the Insurance Company" 16. In Bhushan Sachdeva's case Supreme Court has interpreted the term 'any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal' to determine 'when can insurance company can be aggrieved with the award passed by a Claims Tribunal to invoke the right envisaged in Section 173 of the Act' and 'can it be said that the Insurance Company should not have any grievance at all even in a case where the award appears to be unjust to that company?' Supreme Court has held in Para 10: "10. We are, therefore, of the view that the insurance company can fall within the ambit of the words "any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal" as used in Section 173(1) of the Act, when the insured failed to file an appeal against the award." 17. Supreme Court in the same judgment has held that right to contest that accrues to the insurer before the Claims Tribunal will similarly accrue if the insured fails to prefer an appeal against the award. Para 13 of the reporting is important, which I reproduce: "13. What is meant by the words "failed to contest"? Those words must be interpreted in a realistic manner. Right to contest would include the right to contest by filing an appeal against the award of the Tribunal as well. Hence the insured can continue to contest the claim by filing an appeal as provided under Section 173 of the Act. If the insured fails to prefer an appeal that also would amount to failure to contest that claim effectively. Quite often the insured would lose the desire to contest the claim once he is told that he would not be mulcted with the liability as the same is siphoned off to the insurer. If the insured fails to prefer an appeal that also would amount to failure to contest that claim effectively. Quite often the insured would lose the desire to contest the claim once he is told that he would not be mulcted with the liability as the same is siphoned off to the insurer. It means that insured had dropped out from contesting a claim midway. In such an eventuality the Act enables the insured to contest it on all grounds available to the insured." 18. Legal position, thus, emerges clear. There is no statutory provision nor any recognised principle of law that debars insurance company from filing appeal against award passed by a Claims Tribunal on the question of quantum only. It would not be impressible or difficult for the insurer to invoke remedy of appeal under Section 173 of the Act if award suffers from illegality, in a case where the insured has failed to contest the claim before the Tribunal or has not filed appeal against the award. In such a case seeking leave under Section 170 of the Act before the Tribunal cannot be treated as a pre condition to filing of appeal by the insurer. 19. In the case on hand, as said above, learned Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in deciding issue No. 2 and determining the compensation, appeal filed by the appellant-insurer is, therefore, accepted and finding in issue No. 2 is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide issue No. 2 afresh by allowing the parties to lead more evidence, if so desired. 20. Given that the award of the Tribunal has been assailed on the quantum of compensation only, out of the award amount deposited in this Court, two lac rupees shall be released in favour of Claimant No. 1 Sakina Bi, that is, wife of the deceased and one lac each in favour of Claimants 5 to 7, which shall be subject to final award and apportionment by the learned Tribunal. 21. Record of the Tribunal be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment.