JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, Judge. Present appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against award dated 23.4.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamba in MAC Petition No. 60 of 2008 title Smt. Chanchla Devi and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another. Brief facts of the case: 2. Petitioner Smt. Chanchla Devi and others filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 pleaded therein that in the intervening night of 3rd October 2008 and 4th October 2008 deceased namely Suneet Singh was travelling in ill-fated vehicle No. PB-06F-2632 as owner of goods which was coming from Lal Pull Sherpur to Tapper. It is further pleaded that when vehicle reached at Garghar near Lal Pull Sherpur Tehsil Dalhousie District Chamba HP due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver vehicle went off the road and fell down 600 metres below road. It is further pleaded that age of deceased at the time of accident was 43 years and deceased was commission agent with civil supply Tapper and he was running a shop at village Tapper. It is further pleaded that deceased was also agriculturist. It is further pleaded that monthly income of deceased at the time of death was Rs.7000/- (Seven thousand) per month as commission agent, Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) per month as shop keeper and Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) per month as agriculturist. It is further pleaded that total income of deceased was Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) per month at the time of his death. It is further pleaded that FIR No. 58 of 2008 dated 4.10.2008 was registered at police station Kheri. It is further pleaded that deceased sustained head injuries and died due to head injuries at the spot. It is further pleaded that petitioner No.1 is the widow of deceased and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are minor sons of deceased Suneet Singh. Compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lac sought along with costs and interest @ 12% per annum. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of correspondent No.1 pleaded therein that vehicle was used in contravention of insurance policy. It is further pleaded that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive goods vehicle. It is further pleaded that deceased was gratuitous passenger and his risk was not covered as per insurance policy. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 4. It is further pleaded that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive goods vehicle. It is further pleaded that deceased was gratuitous passenger and his risk was not covered as per insurance policy. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 4. Per contra separate response filed on behalf of correspondent No.2 pleaded therein that vehicle No. PB-06F-2632 was duly insured with insurance company w.e.f. 22.7.2008 to 21.7.2009. It is further pleaded that co-respondent No.1 is liable to indemnify the owner. Contents of paras No. 1 to 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are admitted as correct. It is further pleaded that accident occurred due to failure of brake. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. As per pleadings of parties Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues. 1. Whether accident is result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle in question by its driver in which deceased died?. …OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation petitioners are entitled to and from whom?. …OPP 3. Whether vehicle was being used in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged? ..OPR1 4. Whether driver of vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged?. …OPR1. 5. Whether deceased was a gratuitous passenger in vehicle in question ?. ..OPR1 6 Relief. 5. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative and learned Tribunal decided issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in negative. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted award to the tune of Rs.10,40,000/- (Ten lac forty thousand) payable by insurance company. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also awarded interest @ 12% per annum till payment of award amount. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal further directed that amount of compensation if any already received by petitioners as interim compensation would be deducted from the award amount. 6. Feeling aggrieved against award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamba appellant filed present appeal. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. 6. Feeling aggrieved against award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamba appellant filed present appeal. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is perverse based upon non appreciation of oral and documentaries evidence as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?. 2. Relief. 9. Findings on point No.1 with reasons. 9.1 PW1 MHC Sanjeev Kumar has stated that he brought summoned record. He has stated that copy of FIR Ext PW1/A is correct as per original record. He has stated that two persons have died in the accident namely Kuldip Kumar and Suneet Singh. He has stated that body of Suneet Singh was recovered on 5.10.2008. He has denied suggestion that Suneet Singh was not died on account of motor accident. 9.2 PW2 Dr.Vipin Kumar posted in civil hospital Dalhousie has stated that he brought summoned record. He has stated that post mortem of deceased Suneet Singh was conducted on 5.10.2008 and copy of post mortem is Ext PW2/A which is correct as per original record. 9.3 PW3 Smt. Chanchla Devi has filed affidavit in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that deceased Suneet Singh was the husband of Smt.Chanchla Devi and was depot holder in civil supply depot Tapper. There is recital in affidavit that deceased used to run a shop and also used to perform agriculture work. There is recital in affidavit that monthly income of deceased from all sources was Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) per month. There is further recital in affidavit that petitioners were dependent upon deceased Suneet Singh. There is further recital in affidavit that on 3.10.2008 deceased hired vehicle No. PB-06F-2632 and loaded articles and was travelling in the vehicle as owner of goods. There is further recital in affidavit that in the mid night of 3rd/4th October 2008 at about 11.55 PM when vehicle reached at place Gardhar near Lalpul Sherpur Tehsil Dalhousie then accident took place. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle along with passengers rolled down and deceased Suneet Singh died at the spot due to accident. There is further recital in affidavit that in the mid night of 3rd/4th October 2008 at about 11.55 PM when vehicle reached at place Gardhar near Lalpul Sherpur Tehsil Dalhousie then accident took place. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle along with passengers rolled down and deceased Suneet Singh died at the spot due to accident. There is further recital in affidavit that body of driver was found on 4.10.2008 and body of deceased Suneet Singh was found on 5.10.2008. There is further recital in affidavit that post mortem of deceased was conducted. There is further recital in affidavit that petitioners were dependent upon deceased. There is further recital in affidavit that due to death of deceased Suneet Singh great mental agony and economical loss sustained by petitioners. She has denied suggestion that deceased was not commission agent. She has denied suggestion that deceased was not running shop. She has denied suggestion that monthly income of deceased was not as mention in petition. She has denied suggestion that deceased was not travelling in goods vehicle. She has denied suggestion that petitioners were not dependents upon deceased. 9.4 PW4 Jagdish Kumar has filed affidavit in cross-examination- in-chief Ext PW4/A placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that deceased was known to deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that deceased was depot holder at Tapper and was also running a shop. There is recital in affidavit that deceased used to perform agriculture work. There is recital in affidavit that petitioners were dependents upon deceased. There is further recital in affidavit that on 3.10.2008 deceased hired vehicle No. PB-06F-2632 . There is further recital in affidavit that in the mid night of 3rd/4th October 2008 at about 11.55 PM when vehicle reached at place Gardhar near Lallpul Sherpur then accident took place. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle rolled down and Suneet Singh and Kuldip Singh died at the spot. There is further recital in affidavit that dead body of driver was found on 4.10.2008 and dead body of Suneet Singh was found on 5.10.2008. There is further recital in affidavit that post mortem was conducted. There is further recital in affidavit that due to untimely death of deceased Suneet Singh petitioners have sustained great mental agony and economical problem. He has stated in cross examination that Chanchala Devi is his sister-in-law. There is further recital in affidavit that post mortem was conducted. There is further recital in affidavit that due to untimely death of deceased Suneet Singh petitioners have sustained great mental agony and economical problem. He has stated in cross examination that Chanchala Devi is his sister-in-law. He has denied suggestion that deceased did not use to run shop. He has denied suggestion that deceased was not depot holder. He has denied suggestion that he is deposing falsely because he is relative of deceased. He has denied suggestion that deceased was not travelling as owner of goods in vehicle at the time of accident. 9.5 RW1 Vinod Kumar licence clerk from office of R&LA Dalhousie has stated that he brought summoned record. He has stated that driving licence was issued to Kuldip for LMV vehicle which was valid till 16.6.2025. He has stated that vehicle licence was also endorsed for LMV (Transport) upto 21.8.2010. He has stated that copy of licence is Ext RW1/A which is correct as per original record. He has denied suggestion that LMV (Transport) endorsement was not issued by competent authority. 10. Following documentaries evidence produced by parties. (1) Ext PW1/A is FIR No. 58 of 2008 dated 4.8.2008 registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. (2) Ext PW2/A is post mortem report of deceased Suneet Singh aged 44 years. As per post mortem report deceased died due to sever head injury and drowning. (3) Ext PA is the family register of deceased. (4) Ext PB is the death certificate of deceased Suneet Singh. (5) RW1/A is the driving licence of Kuldeep Kumar. (6) Ext R1 is the policy cover note whereby vehicle involved in accident was insured with United India Insurance Company w.e.f. 22.7.2008 to 21.7.2009 and premium to the tune of Rs.6438/- was taken by United India Insurance Company from the owner of vehicle. (7) Ext R2 is the RC of vehicle No. PB-06F-2632 and vehicle was registered as commercial vehicle. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in vehicle at the time of accident and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Onus to prove issue No.5 was upon insurance company. No official on behalf of insurance company appeared in the witness box in order to prove issue No.5. Onus to prove issue No.5 was upon insurance company. No official on behalf of insurance company appeared in the witness box in order to prove issue No.5. Hence adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against insurance company in present case. See AIR 1999 SC 1441 title Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao and another. Also see AIR 1999 SC 1341 title Iswar Bhai C. Patel Vs. Harihar Behera and another. PW3 Chanchla Devi filed affidavit in examination-in-chief and there is recital in affidavit that deceased was travelling in vehicle No PB-06F-2632 as owner of goods at the time of accident. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was hired upon rent. Affidavit filed by PW3 Chanchala Devi in examination-in-chief is trust worthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve affidavit Ext PW3/A filed by Chanchla Devi in examination-in-chief placed on record. Even PW4 Jagdish Chand has corroborated testimony of PW3 Smt. Chanchla Devi. PW4 Jagdish Chand has filed affidavit Ext PW4/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that deceased was travelling as owner of goods in the vehicle at the time of accident. Testimony of PW4 Jagdish Chand is trust worthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. Hence it is held that deceased Suneet Singh was travelling as owner of goods in the vehicle at the time of accident. It is held that deceased hired the vehicle involved in the accident for transportation of goods. It is well settled law that facts can be proved by way of oral evidence or documentary evidence as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. Insurance Company did not adduce any positive, cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. Hence plea of insurance company that deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger at the time of accident is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (Assertion made without proof). 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed income of deceased as Rs.8000/- (Eight thousand) per month and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Smt. Chanchla Devi has mentioned in affidavit Ext PW3/A that income of deceased was Rs.15000/-(Fifteen thousand) per month. Smt. Chanchla Devi has mentioned in affidavit Ext PW3/A that income of deceased was Rs.15000/-(Fifteen thousand) per month. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed income of deceased as Rs.8000/- (Eight thousand) per month. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd income as personal expenses of deceased. Age of deceased at the time of death was 44 years. After deducting 1/3rd personal expenses the dependency of petitioners comes to Rs.5334/- (Five thousand three hundred thirty four) per month which goes to Rs.64000/- (Sixty four thousand) per annum. In view of the fact that age of deceased at the time of death was 44 years learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has slightly granted excessive compensation and applied multiplier 15 instead of 14. As per ruling reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 title Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another multiplier 14 should be applied wherein the age of deceased is between 41 to 45 years. In the present case the age of deceased at the time of death was 44 years. Hence multiplier of 14 is applied in the present case in view of the ruling cited supra. Hence loss of dependency is granted to the claimants to the tune of Rs.89600/- (Eight lac nine thousand six hundred). 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has granted excess amount towards funeral expenses as Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) is partly accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In view of ruling reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 title Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another funeral expenses is reduced to Rs.5000/-(Five thousand). 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has granted excessive compensation for loss of consortium as Rs.40000/- (Forty thousand) is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In view of ruling reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 title Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another loss of consortium is reduced to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has illegally granted compensation to the tune of Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) for loss of love and affection is accepted. Delhi Transport Corporation and another loss of consortium is reduced to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand). 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has illegally granted compensation to the tune of Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) for loss of love and affection is accepted. In view of ruling cited supra compensation granted by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as Rs.30000/- (Thirty thousand) for love and affection is deleted. Court granted compensation to the claimants under the head loss of estate to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand). 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has illegally granted interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till payment of award amount is also partly answered in yes and partly answered in no. In view of the ruling cited supra Hon’ble Apex Court of India has granted interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. Hence in view of ruling cited supra rate of interest is also reduced to 6% per annum from the date of institution of petition till the date of realization. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents that learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly granted compensation to petitioners is partly answered in yes and partly answered in no. Court is of the opinion that petitioners are entitled for compensation as per ruling reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 title Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another. It is well settled law that ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country as per Article 141 of Constitution of India. In view of the ruling cited supra court has no option but to accept the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court of India. In view of above stated facts the award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified as follow. (A) Compensation for loss of dependency awarded Rs.896000=00(Eight lac ninety six thousand) (B) Compensation for loss of estate awarded Rs. 5000=00(Five thousand) (C) Compensation for funeral expenses awarded Rs. 5000=00(Five thousand) (D) Compensation for loss of consortium awarded Rs. 10000=00(Ten thousand) (E) Total compensation amount awarded. Rs. 916000=00_ (Nine lac sixteen thousand) Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Relief). 18. 5000=00(Five thousand) (C) Compensation for funeral expenses awarded Rs. 5000=00(Five thousand) (D) Compensation for loss of consortium awarded Rs. 10000=00(Ten thousand) (E) Total compensation amount awarded. Rs. 916000=00_ (Nine lac sixteen thousand) Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Relief). 18. In view of findings on point No.1 appeal is partly allowed and compensation amount awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the tune of Rs.1040000/- Ten lac forty thousand) is reduced to Rs.916000/-(Nine lac sixteen thousand). Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till payment of award amount is also reduced to 6% per annum. The award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to this extent only. No order as to costs. File of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of decision. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of.