JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. Appeal by Insurance Company challenging the award dated 11.07.2015 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantnag. The fatal accident occurred on 30.09.2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bashir Ahmed Wagay (hereinafter called deceased) S/o. Ghulam Qadir Wagay R/o. Sagam Tehsil Kokernag, was seriously injured at Hillar Arhama, Anantnag. On 30.09.2008 while travelling in a Tata Mini Bus bearing Registration No. JK03-888, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the Tata Mini Bus. The deceased was initially moved to Kokernag Hospital where from he was referred to SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar. He succumbed the injuries and died on 02.10.2008. FIR No. 120/2008 to this effect was registered at Police Station, Kokernag. The deceased had left behind his widow Sharifa aged 30 years, two minor daughters of 09 years and 05 years old, one minor son of three years, and parents, who are claimants in the present case. 3. The fact that the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle was proved by the oral and documentary evidence. The issue was, therefore, decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 4. In view of the statements of the witnesses it has been held by the Tribunal that the deceased was only 30 years of age well built, healthy young man. He was a business man and was involved in distribution of milk in the Kokernag area. His approximate monthly income was claimed at Rs. 10,000/-. 5. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was 30 years of age. His monthly income was fixed @ Rs. 6,000/- to which 50% was added on account of future prospects. The income was held to be Rs. 9000/- per month, annual income of the deceased was fixed at (9,000 x 12) = Rs. 1,08,000/-. 6. Keeping in view the number of dependents 1/4th of the total income i.e. Rs. 27000/- was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the pecuniary loss to dependents determined as Rs. 1,08,000 - 27,000 = Rs. 81,000. 7. Since the deceased has held to be 30 years of age, multiplier of 17 was applied in terms of the Apex Court decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. report as 2009 (3) Supreme 487 . 8. 1,08,000 - 27,000 = Rs. 81,000. 7. Since the deceased has held to be 30 years of age, multiplier of 17 was applied in terms of the Apex Court decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. report as 2009 (3) Supreme 487 . 8. The deceased was of 30 years of age at the time of fatal accident and is not disputed. The Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of 17 in view of the Apex Court's decision (Supra). The pecuniary loss was assessed at Rs. 13,77,000/- with addition of Rs. one lac on account of loss of consortium to the spouse, Rs. one lac to minor children for loss of love and affection on the death of their father; Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. The claimants were found entitled to the following compensation:- (i) Loss of dependency 13,77,000/- (ii) Loss of c onsortium 1,00,000/- (iii) Loss of l ove & Care 1,00,000/- (iv) Funeral e xpenses 25,000 (v) Loss of e state 5,000 Total 16,07,000/- 9. The Tribunal after considering the evidences on record and facts of the case, granted the compensation of Rs. 16,07,000 (Sixteen lac and seven thousand rupees only) at the rate of 9% interest per annum with the default interest of 12%. 10. On the quantum of compensation, there appears no serious error in the award because deceased on the date of accident was 30 years in age. He was the bread winner for the family and the income was fixed based on the evidence. It is not excessive. The Tribunal in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in judgment cited above, granted the compensation adopting the correct multiplier. It also granted compensation under non-pecuniary heads. It is not excessive. However, default interest of 12% cannot be justified as it is not provided under the Motor Vehicle Act. The appeal to that extent is allowed and default interest set aside. 11. The Tribunal further held that there is no valid driving license when the driver was driving the offending vehicle. This issue was decided in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. There is a valid insurance cover. 11. The Tribunal further held that there is no valid driving license when the driver was driving the offending vehicle. This issue was decided in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. There is a valid insurance cover. In this view of the matter, plea for modifying the award, to the extent that the Insurance Company has to be exonerated from paying the compensation does not merit consideration. 12. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent setting aside the default interest of 12%. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount with interest if not already deposited. Claimants are entitled to withdraw the same on deposit. 13. Appeal is partly allowed. Registry to return the record.