JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All these appeals and yet another appeal AO No. 87/2012 (the file whereof has been called from the Registry) are being adjudicated together herein below by this single verdict because all are interconnected and have arisen out of the same accident nay the impugned judgments dated 21.10.2011, although delivered on the same day but with a little variation on the quantum of compensation. 2. This unfortunate incident occurred on 4.2.2009 at 9.15 AM on Moradabad Bypass Road when a Tavera Car being no. UP04-6828, travelling from Rampur to Delhi was dashed by the truck no. UP76H-8294, which was coming from Delhi to Rampur. Initially both the vehicles were being plied in their left side of the national highway, but as displayed in the map prepared by the Investigation Officer (39Ga/5 in the LCR), the truck suddenly took the right turn causing the accident and as a result thereof Hari Om Washney, Yogesh Washney (son), Dheeraj Washney (son), minor daughter of Dheeraaj Washney and Shabaj Ahmad (driver of Tavera) lost their life on account of the injuries sustained in such accident. Both the vehicles were insured either comprehensively or at least for the third party. Truck was ensured with the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Ltd., while Tavera was ensured with the National Insurance Company Limited. 3. I would like to discuss each AO on its own merits one by one. AO No. 44/2012 4. It was presented by I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the accident occurred on account of the contributory negligence. So, it is unjustified to fasten the insurer/appellant for the whole liability. 5. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR was got registered in this matter under Section 279, 304-A, 338, 427 IPC, wherein the investigation was done by the police and the map was also prepared, as evinced above, and it shows that the accident occurred on account of sudden right shifting of the truck, while the Tavera vehicle was being driven in its left side of the highway. So, the notion of shifting the contributory negligence is not sustainable in my view as well. 6. This appeal has no substance and it is liable to be dismissed. AO NO. 80/2012 7. This appeal has been presented by Pankaj Washney, the surviving son of the deceased Hari Om Washney. So, the notion of shifting the contributory negligence is not sustainable in my view as well. 6. This appeal has no substance and it is liable to be dismissed. AO NO. 80/2012 7. This appeal has been presented by Pankaj Washney, the surviving son of the deceased Hari Om Washney. Claim petition was presented seeking compensation of rupees thirty lakhs, whereagainst the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 2,33,000/-. 8. It has been argued by the learned Counsel of the appellant that the multiplier of 11 has been applied because in the deposition, the age of Mr. Hari Om Washney has been stated by his own son to be 55 years. Against this deposition, age which has been revealed in the title of the petition as well as in the post-mortem is 50 years and it should have been given precedence. 9. I am unable to agree with this because in the post-mortem, the doctor in such gloomy moments mentions the age on his own estimation. The age mentioned in the pleadings, presented at the time of initiation of the petition, is also an afterthought, while in the deposition which is a statement on oath, should have the precedence over all these things. If the age of 55 years is taken, then the application of the multiplier, as done by the Tribunal, has not been disputed. 10. Further, as regards the objection made on the notional income is concerned, I am of the view that on account of absence of any overt believable income, the notional income has rightly been taken. Learned Counsel has relied upon the precedent of this Court rendered in United India Insurance Company v. Kanchan Tewari & Another, 2012 (2) TAC 584, wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the assessment that the per day income of the deceased was Rs. 150/- has rightly been done by the Tribunal. This precedent has no applicability in the present controversy for the simple reason that the judgment was rendered in July 2011 and the facts of each case are different and a Division Bench of this Court has laid down the notional income of rupees three thousand per month, which has not been overruled as of now. So, from that point of view as well, the notional income of rupees three thousand has rightly been assessed. 11. So, from that point of view as well, the notional income of rupees three thousand has rightly been assessed. 11. Hence, this appeal too has no force and is liable to be dismissed. AO No. 86/2012 12. This appeal has been presented by Pankaj Washney for enhancement of compensation. Amount of Rs. 1,14,000/- has been granted against the claim of rupees thirty lakhs. The deceased was the younger brother, whose age was 27 years at the time of death. In no way, Pankaj Washney, who is the elder, can be said to be dependant on his younger brother. Pankaj Washney is simply a legal representative, and not the dependant. 13. In Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2007 (2) TAC 431, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the norms. In such case where the married daughter, who was not dependant on the deceased, claimed compensation under Section 166, then the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that such compensation could have been awarded only under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarding of rupees fifty thousand as compensation is quite optimum in such matters. 14. So, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this appeal is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. AO NO. 88/2012 15. It has been presented by Smt. Anju Washney claiming compensation after the death of her husband Dheeraj Washney, who was 31 years old. Against the claim of rupees twenty lakhs, compensation of Rs. 4,24,000/- has been awarded. 16. Since no proof of income of deceased Dheeraj Washney was produced, so the Court below was constrained to evaluate the income on notional concept. Nothing has been highlighted before this Appellate Court as well regarding the proof of income of Mr. Dheeraj Washney. So, I think that no irregularity has been committed by the learned Trial Court in this matter too. It is also liable to be dismissed. AO NO. 87/2012 17. Since delay in filing this appeal is not being seriously opposed, hence the delay condonation application (CLMA 1796/2012) is allowed. Delay is condoned. Matter is admitted and finally heard on merit. 18. This appeal has been filed by the mother Smt. Asme Be along with the minor brother and sister of the deceased driver Shahbaj. Against the claim of rupees twenty lakhs, compensation of Rs. 3,47,000/- was granted. 19. Delay is condoned. Matter is admitted and finally heard on merit. 18. This appeal has been filed by the mother Smt. Asme Be along with the minor brother and sister of the deceased driver Shahbaj. Against the claim of rupees twenty lakhs, compensation of Rs. 3,47,000/- was granted. 19. Learned Counsel has disputed the application of the multiplier that the same has been applied taking the age of mother into consideration, while the age of the deceased should have been considered for this purpose. 20. This argument does not have any substance for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Devi v. National Insurance Company, wherein Sarla Varma case has also been discussed, held that for choosing the multiplier, the higher age (whichsoever) either of the claimant or the deceased should have been taken into consideration. So, on that score, I do not find any irregularity in the impugned judgment and this appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 21. However, one thing is glaring that higher interest @ 8 per cent per annum has been awarded in all these claim petitions and it should be curtailed to 6 per cent. So, I modify the rate of interest from 8 per cent to 6 per cent per annum with effect from the date of institution of the claim petitions. But if the entire compensation has already been paid, in that case the difference on this account shall not be recovered by the insurance company. It shall be deemed to be reduced only in those cases, wherein the amount of compensation is yet to be released. 22. With the modification in the interest, as indicated above, all these appeals are hereby dismissed. Statutory amount, if not already sent, be remitted along with the interest it has earned to the Tribunal concerned. 23. Let LCRs be sent back.