JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/V F.T.C., Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 111 of 2008, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.11,07,324/- to the claimants/appellants towards compensation. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.03.2008 at 11:30 am, when the deceased was traveling in Vikram No.UP70L/9685 and Vikram reached near District Jail, Sudhowala, a truck bearing no.UP07F/9061 which was being driven by its driver/opposite party no.1, dashed the Vikram, as a result of which the deceased Kundan Singh Dhapola fell down from Vikram and sustained serious injuries. He got admitted in Doon Hospital where he was declared dead. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 46 years and was working as a Mechanic of Floor Mill and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/-. With these averments that the claimants/appellants, who are the wife and minor children of deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dehradun and claimed a sum of Rs. 21,32,000/- as compensation along with 12% interest. 4. Opposite party nos.1 and 2, owner and driver of offending Truck, filed their joint written statement. They denied most of the averments and stated that on the date of accident, their vehicle was insured with Opposite Party no.3 and it was being driven by its driver at a moderate speed. In case the claimants are entitled for any compensation to insurer of the respondent No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. with whom the truck of respondent No. 1 is insured and liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 5. Opposite party no.3, United India Insurance Company Ltd., contested the claim petition and filed its written statement and denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. In additional plea, it has stated that the vehicle in question was being driven without a valid and effective driving license. 5. Opposite party no.3, United India Insurance Company Ltd., contested the claim petition and filed its written statement and denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. In additional plea, it has stated that the vehicle in question was being driven without a valid and effective driving license. It is further contended that at the time of accident the owner of the vehicle was having the valid documents like permit insurance policy and in case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for any compensation, the insurance company of the truck is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 6. Opposite party no.6, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., also filed its written statement and denied most of the averments made in the claim petition. In additional plea, it has stated that the claim petition has been filed without any cause of action against it. At the time of alleged accident, the alleged vehicle Vikram bearing regd. No.UP07L-9685 was being driven by its driver without a valid driving license and papers. 7. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues: (i) Whether on 2.3.2008 at 11.30 am, driver of Truck no.UP07 AF9061 was driving the said truck rashly and negligently and hit the vikram no.UP-07L 9685, due to which Kundan Singh Dhapola died? If so, its effect? (ii) Whether the driver of both the vehicles, which were involved in the accident, were not having valid driving license at the time of accident? (iii) Whether the vehicles involved in the accident were not having valid permit on the date of accident? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation? If yes, how much and from which party? 8. The claimants have produced the documentary evidence the copy of First Information Report, post mortem report, inquest report, site plan, technical inspection report of truck, chargesheet, pay slip and revised pay slip of the deceased. Statement of Smt. Kamla Dhapola claimant was recorded as PW-1 to prove the factum of accident that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of truck, Sunder Singh, PW-2 was examined. Kundan Singh Dhapola was working in Sudhowal Jail, Dehradun to prove the income of deceased, Virendra Singh Rawat PW-3 was examined. 9. Thereafter, both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. Kundan Singh Dhapola was working in Sudhowal Jail, Dehradun to prove the income of deceased, Virendra Singh Rawat PW-3 was examined. 9. Thereafter, both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. After recording the evidence of the parties and after hearing them, learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award, as above. 10. On behalf of the dependents/respondents no evidence was adduced. The tribunal has recorded the findings on issue Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the claimants/appellants. The findings recorded on issue Nos. 1 to 4 have not been challenged by the dependents/respondents. Therefore the findings recorded on the issue Nos. 1 to 3 have attained the finality. Issue No. 4 was framed by the tribunal in regard to the amount of compensation and damages. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 12. The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the driver was plying the vehicle (truck) in question rashly and negligently, which resulted in the accident causing death of the deceased. The Tribunal further found that the driver of truck had a valid licence and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company on the date of accident. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition for a total sum of Rs.11,07,324/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation against the Oriental Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle. 13. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by the parties, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12,498/- per month. After deducting one-third of the monthly salary of the deceased towards the expenses which he would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.8,332/- per month (Rs.12,498 x 1/3 =Rs.4,166/-). Accordingly, the annual dependency came to Rs.99,984/- (i.e. Rs.8332 x 12). By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs.99,984/- with the multiplier of ‘11', the compensation was worked out to Rs.10,99,824 (Rs. 99,984 x 11= Rs. 10,99,824). Besides this, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards the funeral expenses and loss of love and affection of Rs. 5,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the realization of awarded amount. 14. 99,984 x 11= Rs. 10,99,824). Besides this, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards the funeral expenses and loss of love and affection of Rs. 5,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the realization of awarded amount. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier at the age of 46 years should be used as 13, therefore, the tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 11. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 for personal expenses of deceased. Deduction of 1/3 of the income for personal expenses of the deceased is well known criteria, but it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Since the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and was getting a fix pay working as a mechanic and apart from the deceased, he has wife and two children, therefore, he has to spend 3/4 of his income on the family and ¼ on himself. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down principle of deduction for personal and living expenses in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and other vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2012 (11) SCC 738 , the relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder: 15. The question relating to deduction for ‘personal and living expenses' and selection of multiplier fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . In the said case this Court taking into consideration the decisions in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 ; U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chand, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, (2004) 2 SCC 473 , held as follows: “(i) Re Question – Deduction for personal and living expenses: 30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. 31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. 32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third." (ii) Re Question - Selection of multiplier 42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M- 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 15. It is settled proposition of law that multiplier method is an appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptionally. Though, the tribunal has applied the multiplier, but has wrongly applied the multiplier of 11, while the multiplier of 13 would apply in the present case. 16. In view of above, the Tribunal has committed illegality in applying the multiplier of ‘11'. The multiplier of ‘13' is provided for the age group of 46-50 years as per the Motor Vehicles Act. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh & others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has reassessed the compensation Rs.1 Lakh was awarded towards loss of care & guidance for minor children and Rs. 1Lakh was awarded loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded for funeral expenses. 18. Having gone through the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and after considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation and the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation in view of the judgment (supra). The monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 12,498/- and annual income comes of Rs. 1,49,976, deceased had to spent 1/4 in his income on himself, if he had been alive. Therefore, the annual dependency comes of Rs. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 12,498/- and annual income comes of Rs. 1,49,976, deceased had to spent 1/4 in his income on himself, if he had been alive. Therefore, the annual dependency comes of Rs. 1,12,488/- after applying the multiplier of 13, the amount of compensation comes Rs. 14,62,344/-. In addition to the compensation the claimants are entitled for damages in the head of loss of love and affection to the parents and brother and sister of Rs. 1 Lakh, loss of consortium of Rs. 1 lakh and 25,000/- for funeral expenses. In this way, the compensation and damages have to be reassessed as follows: Sl.No. Heads Calculation (Amount in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 14,62,344/- 2 Loss of love & affection 1,00,000/- 3 Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 4 Funeral expenses 25,000/- Total 16,87,344/- 19. The tribunal has awarded the interest @ 6 %, which is not proper in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subulaxmi vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation reported in 2012 (10) SCC 177 , the interest at the present time has been awarded by the Apex Court of 9%. 20. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed. The claimants shall be paid a sum of Rs.16,87,344/- as compensation and damages by the Insurance Company along with interest @ 9% per annum. The amount already paid, if any, by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted. Statutory deposit shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 21. LCR be sent back to the concerned Tribunal. No order as to costs.