JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.1.2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1 Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 32-MAC/2 of 2008, titled Smt. Shanti Devi and another versus Shri Guman Singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,13,000/-, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer came to be saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 3. Owner, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is-whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 5. On the face of it, the amount awarded is inadequate. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of accident. He was a bachelor. It can be safely held that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month. One half was to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The multiplier of “15” was applicable in view of 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Thus, it is held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 1500x12x15. Total Rs. 2,70,000/-. I also hold the claimants entitled to compensation under the three heads as under: (i) loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.30,000/- Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of impugned award, keeping view the facts of the case. 7. It is apt to record herein that FAO No. 88 of 2010, titled Smt. Masto Devi and another versus Shri Guman Singh and others and FAO No. 445 of 2010 titled Guman Singh versus Masto Devi and others, arising out of the same accident were listed and disposed of today wherein insurer came to be saddled with the liability with right of recovery from the owner. 8. 8. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the insurer with liability for the reasons that the deceased had not hired the truck but was traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger. It is not the case of the owner and driver that the deceased had hired the vehicle for loading and unloading 100 bags of maize/corn. Thus, the owner has committed willful breach. 9. In order to protect the interest of the third party read with the fact that the factum of insurance is admitted, the insurer has to satisfy the award with right of recovery. 10. Accordingly, the impugned award is enhanced and modified, as indicated hereinabove. 11. Insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today, if not already deposited, with right of recovery from the owner. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank accounts. 12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.