JUDGMENT : R. SUDHAKAR, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda and Kishtwar for short, the Tribunal. These appeals arising out of a single accident which happened on 08.05.2008 are disposed of by a common order. 2. The ill fated Bus bearing Registration No. JK02N-2236 was proceeding from Kishtwar to Jammu. While going on hilly terrain, it rolled down the road near Barta Bridge, Hasti due to which 37 persons died and 03 were injured. The total seating capacity of the offending vehicle is 27 including the Driver and Conductor. The driver of the offending vehicle also died in the said accident. The offending vehicle was admittedly overloaded with 14 passengers. 3. It appears that an issue was framed by the Tribunal on overloading, but the Insurance Company however, did not lead any evidence to prove any breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy that the offending vehicle was overloaded or that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid Driving license. 4. The plea of the appellant-Insurance Company is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 ACJ 2129 Insurance Company would at best be liable only for 27 passengers and thereafter it is the owner of the offending vehicle, who has to satisfy the award for rest of the claimants. In this case the Tribunal failed to grant that relief. It is further pleaded that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam and others, 2011 ACJ 917 , the Insurance Company should be given option of paying the compensation and recovering the same from the owner of the vehicle. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment Anjana Shyam's case (supra) held that:- "16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately." 6. In United India Insurance Co. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 26, held as follows:- "26. Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons traveling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case, 2007 ACJ 2129 (SC). The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case." 7. In this batch the claim made consequent to the accident is apparently more than the vehicles passenger carrying capacity. The records speak for itself. The Insurance Company in any case can be made liable only to the extent of its insurance cover. Hence the said plea is accepted. 8. In view of the first plea, foremost thing is to identify those 27 passengers for whom, Insurance Company is liable and other claims which the Insurance Company has to satisfy and recover from the owner of the vehicle. 9. In terms of Anjana Shyam's case (supra), 27 highest claims shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company and balance will be the liability of the owner of the vehicle, which, however, the Insurance Company will pay and it will be entitle to recover the same from the owner of vehicle as per K.M. Poonam's case (supra). 10. 9. In terms of Anjana Shyam's case (supra), 27 highest claims shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company and balance will be the liability of the owner of the vehicle, which, however, the Insurance Company will pay and it will be entitle to recover the same from the owner of vehicle as per K.M. Poonam's case (supra). 10. Insofar as issue regarding reduction of compensation is concerned, the Court is inclined to take up each case separately. CIMA No. 255/2011 11. This case is of the year 2011. 12. The accident in this case happened on 08.05.2008. 13. On the death of Khushnuma Bano, aged 16 years, who was a student of 10th standard, her parents made a claim petition before the Tribunal. It was pleaded that deceased-Khushnuma Bano used to do household work, tailoring and also used to teach the students. 14. The Tribunal after fixing the income of the deceased-Khushnuma Bano at Rs. 2000/-, per month, deducted 1/3rd towards her personal expenses and by adopting multiplier of 8, granted the compensation under the following heads:- 1. Loss of income Rs.1,27,872/- 2. For love and affection Rs.15,000/- 3. For funeral expenses Rs.10,000 Total Rs.1,52,872/- 15. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,872/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 16. In the cross objections filed by the claimants-respondents 1 and 2 herein, it is pleaded that the deceased-Khushnuma Bano was earning substantially by doing tailoring work, besides this she used to earn by tuition classes. She was also supporting her parents in their agriculture and other related activities and therefore, her income should be fixed at Rs. 4500/- per month and the income fixed by the Tribunal is meager. The above said claim is based on evidence of persons and not disputed by the insurance Company. 17. Considering the fact that deceased-Khushnuma Bano was earning through tailoring work, tuitions to students, supporting her parents in their agriculture related activities, her income can be fixed at Rs. 4500/- per month. The deceased was not married 50% towards personal expenses should be deducted. The loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2250/-, (2250 x 12) = Rs. 27,000/- per annum. By adopting the multiplier of 18 based on the age as per the Apex Court decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. 4500/- per month. The deceased was not married 50% towards personal expenses should be deducted. The loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2250/-, (2250 x 12) = Rs. 27,000/- per annum. By adopting the multiplier of 18 based on the age as per the Apex Court decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the pecuniary loss comes Rs. 27,000 x 18 = Rs. 4,86,000/- The compensation awarded on other heads i.e. for loss of love and affection and funeral expenses is confirmed. 18. In modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to the following enhanced compensation:- S.No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified award 1. Loss of income Rs.1,27,872/- Rs.4,86,000/- 2. For love and affection Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 3. For funeral expenses Rs.10,000 Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.5,11,000/- 19. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount and the enhanced amount along with interest. On deposit, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the same. 20. Interest granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. However, interest in respect of the enhancement amount will be 7.5% per annum only. CIMA No. 486/2014 21. In this case for the death of Bharat Bhushan, aged 28 years bachelor stated to be working as Managing Director in Sarv Shakti Mining and Construction Company, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. His mother, father and brothers filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming sum of Rs. 28,50,000/- as compensation, but the Tribunal held that mother of the deceased-Bharat Bhushan alone is entitled to compensation as dependent. 22. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased-Bharat Bhushan as Rs. 15,000/- per month, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and by adopting the multiplier of 11, awarded the following compensation along with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of award amount:- 1. Compensation on account of total future Loss of dependency Rs.5,76,00/- 2. Compensation on account of lose of estate Rs.5,000/- 3. Compensation on account of funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.5,86,000/- 23. To prove the income of the deceased-Bharat Bhushan it appears that the claimants examined one Accountant Gulab Chand. The father of the deceased Sewa Ram also appeared as witness. Compensation on account of total future Loss of dependency Rs.5,76,00/- 2. Compensation on account of lose of estate Rs.5,000/- 3. Compensation on account of funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.5,86,000/- 23. To prove the income of the deceased-Bharat Bhushan it appears that the claimants examined one Accountant Gulab Chand. The father of the deceased Sewa Ram also appeared as witness. The Accountant Gulab Chand stated that deceased was working as a Managing Director in Sarv Shakti Mining and Construction Company and the witness is working as Accountant in the said company. He further stated that the deceased-Bharat Bhushan as managing partner of the Company was earning Rs. 20561/- per month. He also produced a TDS certificate and copy of the partnership deed in relation to the Mining Company. However, the same was not relied upon before the Tribunal. Except oral statements of the witness, material documents in support of the income of the deceased were not produced to prove that deceased was a partner or a Director of the Mining Company. Unless specific documents are shown to prove the actual income of the deceased, Tribunal was not justified in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month without reasons. 24. Considering the age of the deceased-Bharat Bhushan, a bachelor and the statement of witness that he was engaged in some mining activity and in a partnership firm the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs. 10,000/- per month. From this 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased a bachelor. The balance amount of Rs. 5000 x 12 = Rs. 60,000/- per annum will be the pecuniary loss to the dependents. In this case the multiplier of 18 has to be taken. Hence, the compensation will be higher than what has been awarded by the Tribunal, because lesser multiplier of 11 has been taken. No amount has been granted on account of loss of love and affection to the claimant-mother. Considering all these aspect, there is no justification to reduce the compensation any further. The compensation if reworked will be almost the same. 25. Appeal on quantum is dismissed and award of the Tribunal is confirmed. CIMA No. 456/2011 26. In this case for the death of Rajinder Kumar Thakur, aged 25 years old at the time of death, his parents filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. The compensation if reworked will be almost the same. 25. Appeal on quantum is dismissed and award of the Tribunal is confirmed. CIMA No. 456/2011 26. In this case for the death of Rajinder Kumar Thakur, aged 25 years old at the time of death, his parents filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 41,90,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased was a business man by profession and was earning Rs. 15,000/20,000/- per month. 27. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and by adopting the multiplier of 18, awarded the following compensation alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment of award amount. 1. Compensation on account of total future Loss of dependency Rs.5,76,00/- 2. Compensation on account of lose of estate Rs.5,000/- 3. Compensation on account of funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.5,86,000/- 28. The plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that excess amount has been awarded on account of loss of income to the claimants. 29. Considering the age of the deceased, though a bachelor and the parents are dependents, the quantum of compensation is just and proper for the reason that the deceased was 25 years old and there is likelihood of future prospects insofar as income is concerned. Moreover, no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the parents. 30. In such view of the matter, the appeal on quantum is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. CIMA No. 231/2014 31. For the death of Shikha Kiran, aged 22 years old at the time of death, his father and mother filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 28,70,000/- as compensation. 32. The Tribunal while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kalpana & Ors., reported as AIR 2007 SC 1243 fixed the contribution of the deceased-Shikha Kiran at Rs. 3000/- per month and without deducting any amount towards personal expenses adopted the multiplier of 18 and determined the total loss of income as (Rs. 36,000 x 18) = Rs. 6,48,000/-. The Tribunal also granted Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses. 33. In all a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month and without deducting any amount towards personal expenses adopted the multiplier of 18 and determined the total loss of income as (Rs. 36,000 x 18) = Rs. 6,48,000/-. The Tribunal also granted Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses. 33. In all a sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- was granted as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. filing of the petition. 34. In this appeal, it is pleaded that the method adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. That plea deserves to be accepted however, just compensation has to be arrived. 35. The compensation can be assessed by fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4500/- per month a bachelor based on oral evidence. Deduction in this case should be 50% towards personal expenses. The loss of income will be of Rs. 2250/- (2250 x 12 x 18) = Rs. 4,86,000/-. Therefore, the total pecuniary loss of income will be Rs. 4,86,000/-. For loss of love and affection claimants are held entitled to Rs. 30,000/-. Amount awarded on account of funeral expenses is confirmed. 36. In modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimants are held entitled to compensation as under:- S. No. Heading Award of the Tribunal Modified award 1. Total Loss of income Rs.6,48,000/- Rs.4,86,000/- 2. f uneral expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. For love and affection Nil Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.5,26,000/- 37. The interest granted by the Tribunal is confirmed. 38. Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount, if not, already deposited. On deposit claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. 39. Appeal is partly allowed. CIMA No. 486/2012 40. In this case on the death of Ramesh Chander, aged 48 years, who was owner of a General Kiryana Shop at Kishtwar. The wife and three children filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 26,50,000/- as compensation. 41. The Tribunal after fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8000/-, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and by adopting multiplier of 13 awarded the following compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of award amount:- 1. Compensation on account of total future Loss of dependency Rs.9,36,000/- 2. Compensation on account of loss of consortium to the widow (Pet. No. 1) Rs.10,000/- 3. Compensation on account of lose of estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Compensation on account of total future Loss of dependency Rs.9,36,000/- 2. Compensation on account of loss of consortium to the widow (Pet. No. 1) Rs.10,000/- 3. Compensation on account of lose of estate Rs. 10,000/- 4. Compensation on account of funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.9,66,000/- 42. In appeal, it is pleaded that the income fixed by the Tribunal is on the higher side and deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. 43. In this case, considering the age and income of the deceased, who was supporting a family i.e., wife and three children the compensation award by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. Furthermore meager amount has been granted for loss of consortium and no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the children, therefore, excess amount can be adjusted on this head. 44. Accordingly, appeal on quantum of compensation is dismissed and award of the Tribunal is confirmed. CIMA No. 249/2013 45. In this case for the death of Roshan Lal, aged about 56 years, who was a Head Constable in Police department drawing monthly salary of Rs. 15,522/- his wife aged 48 years, three sons aged 28, 23 and 15 and one daughter aged 18 years filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 23,50,000/- as compensation. 46. The Tribunal after fixing the monthly income of the decease Roshan Lal as Rs. 15,522/-, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and by adopting the Multiplier of 9, awarded following compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of award amount:- 1. Compensation on account of total future Loss of dependency Rs.11,17,584/- 2. Compensation on account of funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- 3. Compensation on account of lose of estate Rs. 5,000/- 4. Compensation on account of loss of consortium to the widow Petitioner No. 1 Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.11,32,584/- 47. On perusal of the quantum of compensation there appears no serious error in the quantum fixed by the Tribunal. Deduction is correct. Meager amount has been granted on account of loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 and no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the children. Excess amount, if any, can be adjusted on the other heads omitted. 48. Deduction is correct. Meager amount has been granted on account of loss of consortium to claimant No. 1 and no amount has been granted for loss of love and affection to the children. Excess amount, if any, can be adjusted on the other heads omitted. 48. Accordingly, the appeal on quantum of compensation is dismissed and award of the Tribunal is confirmed. All the appeals stand disposed of as above.