JUDGMENT : Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the original claimants, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07/10/2003 passed by the Additional Member of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No. 23/2002. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows : "Appellant No. 1 is the mother, whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the brothers of the deceased Premsagar. On the date of incident on 12/11/2001, deceased was traveling along with his father on Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing No. MH-30-G-9927 from Mangrulpir to Karanja. On the way, Luxury Bus bearing No. MH-30-A-9981 coming from opposite side, gave dash to the scooter of the deceased. As a result, both deceased Premsagar and his father died in the said accident, on account of the dash given by the Luxury Bus. The Luxury Bus was insured with respondent No. 3, whereas it was owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1. Hence, they are sued for the amount of compensation on account of untimely death of the deceased. It was averred by the appellants that deceased was earning Rs. 1200/- per month by working in the Xerox Centre of witness No. 2 Deolal Ingole. On account of his death, they have lost their only source of income, and hence they claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-." 3. The respondent No. 1's name was deleted from the petition, whereas respondent No. 2 remained absent though duly served, and hence, petition proceeded ex-parte against him. 4. It was respondent No. 3 alone which resisted the petition by written statement at Exh. 13, admitting the insurance of the Luxury Bus and also the fact that it has a valid insurance at the time of incident. However, it is denied that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 3. As regards the amount of compensation claimed, it was contended that it was exorbitant. 5. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues for it's consideration. In support of her claim, appellant No. 1 examined herself and also the owner of Vaishnali Xerox Centre, Shri Deolal Ingole, to prove that the deceased was working in the said Xerox Centre and was earning salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. 5. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues for it's consideration. In support of her claim, appellant No. 1 examined herself and also the owner of Vaishnali Xerox Centre, Shri Deolal Ingole, to prove that the deceased was working in the said Xerox Centre and was earning salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. Both these witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of respondent No. 3. However, respondent No. 3 did not led any oral or documentary evidence. 6. On appreciating evidence of these witnesses, it was to held by the Tribunal that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver, and hence the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. However, as regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal came to disbelieve the evidence of witness No. 2 that the deceased was working with him as Xerox Operator, and therefore, the learned Tribunal held that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was earning the income of Rs. 1200/- per month. The learned Tribunal further came to hold that at the time of incident, the deceased was in the school and considering his age and uncertainty of life, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 80,000/- only, as being just and reasonable, inclusive of the amount received by the appellant towards No Fault Liability. 7. While challenging the judgment of the learned Tribunal, submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record properly nor applied the correct multiplier. Tribunal has also failed to award the compensation towards the heads of loss of love and affection, loss of dependency, loss of estate and the funeral expenses. It is urged that as per the Post Mortem Report, the age of the deceased was shown as 25 years, and in such situation, even if the evidence of witness No. 1 is disbelieved, in that case also, considering the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal should have calculated the loss of dependency and applied the correct multiplier of 16 having regard to the age of appellant No. 1, who is the mother and awarded the compensation towards the additional heads of loss of love and affection, loss of dependency, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal should have calculated the loss of dependency and applied the correct multiplier of 16 having regard to the age of appellant No. 1, who is the mother and awarded the compensation towards the additional heads of loss of love and affection, loss of dependency, loss of estate and funeral expenses etc. It is urged that the learned Tribunal has not considered all these aspects and awarded meager sum of Rs. 80,000/- only, as compensation. It is totally a perverse finding and it needs to be quashed and set aside and compensation amount be awarded by calculating all the heads, as claimed by the appellants. 8. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 tried to support the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, he could not succeed in doing so. Considering the legal position as well as the factual position, this Court is constrained to observe that the learned Tribunal has not at all properly appreciated the evidence on record and also the legal aspects. 9. It may be true that as regards the aspect of negligence and liability of the respondents to compensate the claimants. The Tribunal has rightly held that in the absence of any evidence produced on record by the respondents, even by non-examining the Bus Driver of the Luxury Bus, it has to be held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Luxury Bus. This finding cannot be disturbed in view of the fact that it is based on the evidence, especially the FIR (Exh. 28) and also because the respondents have not challenged the same by filing any cross-objection to the appeal. 10. The only issue raised for consideration is pertaining to the quantum of compensation and on this aspect, it has to be held that the Tribunal has not calculated the compensation amount correctly. Even accepting the finding given by the learned Tribunal that no documentary evidence is produced on record by the witness No. 2 Deolal Ingole to prove that deceased was working with him as Xerox Operator and earning salary of Rs. 1200/- per month, the fact remains that at the time of incident, the deceased was definitely of the age of 18 years, as deposed by the appellant No. 1. 1200/- per month, the fact remains that at the time of incident, the deceased was definitely of the age of 18 years, as deposed by the appellant No. 1. It can be seen from the inquest panchnama and post mortem report, his age is shown as 25 years. Hence, it has to be held that at the time of accident, he was a major person. Merely because in the school leaving certificate it is mentioned that he has left the school on 12/11/2001 i.e. date of accident, it cannot be accepted or presumed that on the date of accident, he was a school going boy. 11. Once deceased was held to be a major person, then compensation amount has to be calculated on the basis of the notional income of Rs. 1,500/- per month. As he was unmarried, 50% of the said income will have to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, liability or dependency of the appellants on his income comes to Rs. 750/- per month x 12 which comes to Rs. 9,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has not at all applied any multiplier but awarded compensation amount of Rs. 80,000/-, which was not at all a correct method to calculate the amount of compensation. 12. In the instant case, for the purpose of deciding multiplier, as the deceased was unmarried, the age of the appellant No. 1, who was mother, is required to be considered, it being on higher side. Her age is stated in the petition to be 35 years. Hence, appropriate multiplier would be 16. Accordingly, the total dependency comes to Rs. 9,000/- x 16 = Rs. 1,44,000/-. 13. Then learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards the funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of estate etc., and thereby committed an error, which needs to be corrected in this appeal. As per the recent trend and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellants will be entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 4,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, total amount of compensation to which the appellant is entitled, comes to Rs. 1,44,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 4,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection of 4 appellants and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, totally Rs. 6,69,000/-. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 4,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus, total amount of compensation to which the appellant is entitled, comes to Rs. 1,44,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 4,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection of 4 appellants and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, totally Rs. 6,69,000/-. Out of that the learned Tribunal has already granted the compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. If that amount is deducted, then the appellants become entitle to recover an amount of Rs. 5,89,000/- from the respondents with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on this amount interest should be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition on 28/01/2002. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Neeta Kallappa Kadolkar and others v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur, 2015(3) SCC 590 , wherein interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment. As against it, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that amount of compensation is enhanced today by this court and in such situation, awarding rate of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition will not be proper. It would be penalizing the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that if the Tribunal has awarded this amount, the respondent No. 3 would have paid or already deposited the same and was not required to pay interest on this amount from the date of petition. 15. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel of both the parties and considering the period for which this appeal remained pending and once it was also dismissed in default, in my opinion, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum would be just and reasonable. 16. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 5,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 28/01/2002 till deposit/payment of the entire amount, subject to payment of deficit court fee stamp, if any. 17. 16. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 5,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 28/01/2002 till deposit/payment of the entire amount, subject to payment of deficit court fee stamp, if any. 17. The respondents are further directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation in this court within a period of 3 months. 18. On deposit of such amount of compensation by the respondents, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same, as per apportionment made by the Tribunal. 19. The appeal is thus allowed and disposed of in above terms.