JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 24/4/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 2. While the Insurance Company has filed the appeal questioning its liability to make payment of compensation, the claimants parents & siblings have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The application for compensation was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') with the averments that on 17/10/2006 Mukesh was going with his friend Vinod Kumar on a bicycle when the offending vehicle, TATA 407, which was being driven rashly and negligently, struck the said bicycle, resulting in both Mukesh and his friend Vinod Kumar suffering grievous injuries, to which they succumbed. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs.4,77,900/- was claimed. The application was opposed by owner and driver alleging that the cycle was being driven rashly and negligently which resulted in the accident. 4. The Insurance Company disputed its liability alleging that the driver of TATA 407 was not possessing a valid driving licence. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the mini truck, the Insurance Company was liable for making payment of amount of compensation as weight of the vehicle in question was less than 7500 kgs. and was a light motor vehicle and the driver was in possession of a driving licence authorized to drive light motor vehicle. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 21 years, the income was assessed at Rs.3,000/- p.m., multiplier of 15 was adopted and 1/3rd amount was deducted towards personal expenses and compensation to the tune of Rs.3,36,000/- was awarded, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.12,000/- towards love & affection was also awarded and in all a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was awarded. 5. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the issue raised by the appellant Insurance Company regarding violation of policy condition on account of the driver of TATA 407 having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle only, stands concluded against the appellant Insurance Company in view of the larger bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company & Ors. : Civil Appeal No.5826/2011 decided on 3/7/2017. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the dispute pertains to multiplier adopted and the calculation made by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. It is submitted that the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and 1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses and taking loss of income at Rs.2,000/- p.m. the annual loss was assessed at Rs.24,000/- and after applying the multiplier of 15 the same though comes to Rs.3,60,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,36,000/- only. Further submissions were made that the multiplier has been adopted based on the age of parents of the deceased, whereas, under Second Schedule of the Act, which pertains to Section 163-A of the Act, the age of the deceased only is relevant and, therefore, the multiplier of 17 should have been adopted. It was fairly submitted that the amount awarded towards loss of love & affection at Rs.12,000/- is in excess in terms of Second Schedule and only Rs.9,500/- should have been awarded. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any interest, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 171 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that no ground relating to interest has been taken by the claimants and, therefore, the same does not call for interference. 8. I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. So far as the issue raised by the appellant Insurance Company regarding its liability is concerned, the same stands squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan and, therefore, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company. So far as the issue raised by the appellant Insurance Company regarding its liability is concerned, the same stands squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan and, therefore, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company. So far as the appeal filed by the claimants is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-claimants deserve to be accepted inasmuch as the age of the deceased is required to be taken into consideration for arriving at the multiplier, which in terms of the Second Schedule in the present case would be 17. The assessment of income has neither been questioned nor the same requires any interference. 9. So far as the award of interest is concerned, though the said aspect has not been challenged in the memo of appeal, the same being statutory and a question of mere calculation, can definitely be raised during the course of arguments also. 10. In view thereof, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- towards loss of income (2000x12x17), and Rs.9,500/- towards general damages in terms of Second Schedule of the Act. Thus the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,17,500/-. Further, the claimants would also be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application i.e 24/3/2007 till the date of actual payment on the entire amount of compensation. 11. In view of the above discussion, while the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The award impugned is modified and the claimants are held entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,17,500/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 24/3/2007. The Tribunal has directed payment of compensation to parents only, therefore, the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest be paid equally to appellant Kheema Ram and Smt. Kamala Devi in their Saving Bank Account. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to make payment of balance amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.