JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Both these appeals are being taken up together for adjudication as have arisen out of the same judgment rendered by the Tribunal/District Court, Chamoli on 14.08.2007. 2. The accident occurred on 26.10.2004 at 3:45 P.M. on Roorkee-Haridwar Road, where a Maruti Car dashed with Delhi Transport Corporation owned Bus. The Car was being driven by its owner Mr. Suresh Chandra Jain, who was travelling along with his wife and personal servant Mr. Mohan Singh. All three died. The Car and the Bus both were insured with the same Insurance Company. 3. Claim Petition was filed by LRs of the deceased couple, it was ultimately ruled that since both the vehicles were covered under the National Insurance Company, hence the award was liable to be satisfied by such insurer. 4. The Claim Petition No.62 of 2005 was presented by the parents of youth Mr. Mohan Singh, who lost his life at the age of 20 years, while travelling along with his master Mr. Suresh Chandra Jain. 5. Learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment, awarded the sum of Rs.1,02,000/- but the 50% liability to satisfy the award was apportioned on the National Insurance Company while rest 50% liability has been fastened on Shri Manasvi Jain, the legal representative of deceased Shri Suresh Chandra Jain (owner of the car). 6. Feeling aggrieved, Shri Mansavi Jain has come up here by way of filing AO No. 83 of 2008 seeking to shift the whole liability of payment to satisfy the award upon the National Insurance Company, while parents of the deceased have come up for the enhancement of the award by way of filing AO No. 444 of 2008. 7. It is pertinent to mention that on 26.03.2008, coordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicating the AO Nos. 484, 602 of 2006, has already ruled that the National Insurance Company was liable to pay the whole award to the LRs of Mr. Suresh Chandra Jain on account of his losing the life in such accident. 8. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant Manasvi Jain, has apprised the Court that both the judgments, while challenged by the National Insurance Company, have also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, otherwise also, I do agree with the contention that Mr. Suresh Chandra Jain on account of his losing the life in such accident. 8. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant Manasvi Jain, has apprised the Court that both the judgments, while challenged by the National Insurance Company, have also been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, otherwise also, I do agree with the contention that Mr. Mohan Singh was also travelling in the same car, hence, it is only the National Insurance Company, which has to make the payments to satisfy the award and not Mr. Manasvi Jain. So, 50% liability, apportioned on Mr. Manasvi Jain, is hereby done away with by this Court. Thus, AO No.83 of 2008 stands allowed. 9. As regards the enhancement of the award, I think that learned Tribunal has gone wrong while taking the annual income of the deceased youth to the tune of Rs.15,000/- only because Division Bench of this Court in case of “Smt. Mayawati and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another,” reported in 2006 (2) UD 657 , has contemplated that all the accidents, which happened during the period between 1994 to 2004, the notional income should be to the tune of Rs.36,000/- because, there has been a steep hike in the price index of the essential commodities and the resultant increase in the cost of living during the period, when the Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act envisaging the notional income of Rs.15,000/- was enacted. 10. Even after the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, further 10 years have been elapsed. So, in any case, it would be appropriate to consider the notional income at the value of Rs.36,000/- per annum. 11. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, hence 50% should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, for base value of Rs.18,000/-, to apply the multiplier of “15” at the average age of applicants-petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased youth. This way, the total amount of compensation, comes to Rs.2,70,000/- instead of what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Further, it would be in the fitness of things to award 6% annual simple interest on such amount from the date of institution of the claim petition, which the National Insurance Company is liable to pay. 13. Remaining amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company after due calculation within four weeks from today. 14. 12. Further, it would be in the fitness of things to award 6% annual simple interest on such amount from the date of institution of the claim petition, which the National Insurance Company is liable to pay. 13. Remaining amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company after due calculation within four weeks from today. 14. Learned Tribunal is directed to immediately reimburse the whole of the amount to the applicants-petitioners 50-50%, whether deposited or in TDR or as and when deposited by the Insurance Company. 15. If the amount is lying in the TDR, then it shall be en-cashed in order to make the payment of award. 16. The compulsory statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was deposited by Mr. Manasvi Jain shall also be returned back to him along with interest, which it has earned during its lying in the bank. 17. With the above observations, this appeal (AO No. 444 of 2008) stands disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the Tribunal concerned for information and compliance.