JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since common question of law and facts arise for consideration in both these appeals, therefore, these were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common reasoning. 2. Aggrieved by the award passed by learned Tribunal below, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal being FAO No. 4235 of 2013 and the claimants have filed a separate appeal being FAO No. 190 of 2014. 3. The claimants are the mother, brother and sister of deceased Nitesh alias Nishu, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 15.4.2011 at 5.15 p.m. near Village Pab, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. It was averred that the deceased was travelling in Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-17B-5752 being driven by Balak Ram in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in its accident and consequent death of Nitesh alias Nishu. It was averred that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and on such basis, a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed. 4. The learned Tribunal below after recording the evidence and evaluating the same, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.8,07,600/-. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. While awarding the aforesaid compensation, the learned Tribunal below has accorded the following reasons in support of its conclusion: "14. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month but they have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased and the oral evidence produced by them is not cogent and reliable. Therefore, his income is assessed at Rs.3,600/- which were minimum wages fixed by the Govt. for unskilled labour at that time. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170, addition of 50% is made in the income of the deceased for future prospective. Thus, total income of the deceased comes to be Rs. 5,400/- per month. The deceased died leaving behind his widowed mother and two minor siblings. In view of this 1/3rd is to be deducted from his income for his personal living expenses. Therefore, net loss of dependency in this case would be Rs.3,600/- per month or Rs.43,200/- per annum. Thus, total income of the deceased comes to be Rs. 5,400/- per month. The deceased died leaving behind his widowed mother and two minor siblings. In view of this 1/3rd is to be deducted from his income for his personal living expenses. Therefore, net loss of dependency in this case would be Rs.3,600/- per month or Rs.43,200/- per annum. Now applying the multiplier of 18' as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, 2009 AIR SC 104, the total loss of dependency comes to be Rs.43,200 x 18 = Rs.7,77,600/-. In addition to this, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioners as funeral charges and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate. Thus, the petitioners are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,07,600/-. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners." 7. It would be noticed that admitted case of the parties is that the deceased was 17 years of age at the time of the accident and furthermore even the learned Tribunal below has held that there was no evidence of the income of the deceased. Therefore, obviously, in such circumstances, the award passed by the learned Tribunal below cannot sustain in its entirety. 8. What would be compensation payable in such types of cases was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chhama Devi and others, 2019 ACJ 536, wherein it was observed as under:- "24. Admittedly in this case the deceased was minor of 17 years of age. In the case of Kishan Gopal vs. Lala, (2013) ACJ 2594 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of a minor child about 10 years. The accident in that case had taken place on 19.07.1992, whereas the accident in the instant case had taken place on 15.06.2010. 25. In the case of Kishan Gopal vs. Lala, (2013) ACJ 2594 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of a minor child about 10 years. The accident in that case had taken place on 19.07.1992, whereas the accident in the instant case had taken place on 15.06.2010. 25. Therefore, keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the high cost of living and inflation, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be subserved in case the award, as passed by the learned Tribunal, is modified and the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- plus interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 27.07.2010." Award passed by the Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court S.No. Heads Amount 1. Monthly income = Rs.6000 deduction 50% = Rs.3000/- Rs.3000x12x18=Rs.6,48,000/- Monthly income = Rs.6000/- deduction 50%= Rs.3000/- Rs.3000x12x16=Rs.5,76,000/- 2. - - 3. Conventional charges=Rs.1,00,000/- Conventional charges=Rs.1,00,000/- Total = Rs.7,48,000/- Total = Rs. 6,76,000/- 9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, the award passed by the learned Tribunal below is accordingly modified and the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,76,000/-. 10. It would be noticed that the learned Tribunal below has not awarded any interest on the compensation amount, constraining the claimants to file a separate appeal being FAO No. 190 of 2014. 11. For liability arising out of Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory liability and in addition to that it is more than settled that a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for deprivation which may be called interest, compensation or damages and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others vs. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 . 12. 12. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, the appeal filed by the claimants being FAO No. 190 of 2014 is allowed by holding the claimants to be entitled to the interest, whereas FAO No. 4235 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed and instead of awarding compensation of Rs.8,07,600/-, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,76,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 6.9.2011 till the date of payment. 13. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since common question of law and facts arise for consideration in both these appeals, therefore, these were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common reasoning. 2. Aggrieved by the award passed by learned Tribunal below, the Insurance Company has filed an appeal being FAO No. 4235 of 2013 and the claimants have filed a separate appeal being FAO No. 190 of 2014. 3. The claimants are the mother, brother and sister of deceased Nitesh alias Nishu, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 15.4.2011 at 5.15 p.m. near Village Pab, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. It was averred that the deceased was travelling in Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-17B-5752 being driven by Balak Ram in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in its accident and consequent death of Nitesh alias Nishu. It was averred that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and on such basis, a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed. 4. The learned Tribunal below after recording the evidence and evaluating the same, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.8,07,600/-. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. While awarding the aforesaid compensation, the learned Tribunal below has accorded the following reasons in support of its conclusion: "14. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month but they have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased and the oral evidence produced by them is not cogent and reliable. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month but they have not produced any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased and the oral evidence produced by them is not cogent and reliable. Therefore, his income is assessed at Rs.3,600/- which were minimum wages fixed by the Govt. for unskilled labour at that time. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170, addition of 50% is made in the income of the deceased for future prospective. Thus, total income of the deceased comes to be Rs. 5,400/- per month. The deceased died leaving behind his widowed mother and two minor siblings. In view of this 1/3rd is to be deducted from his income for his personal living expenses. Therefore, net loss of dependency in this case would be Rs.3,600/- per month or Rs.43,200/- per annum. Now applying the multiplier of 18' as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. DTC, 2009 AIR SC 104, the total loss of dependency comes to be Rs.43,200 x 18 = Rs.7,77,600/-. In addition to this, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioners as funeral charges and Rs. 5,000/- as loss of estate. Thus, the petitioners are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,07,600/-. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners." 7. It would be noticed that admitted case of the parties is that the deceased was 17 years of age at the time of the accident and furthermore even the learned Tribunal below has held that there was no evidence of the income of the deceased. Therefore, obviously, in such circumstances, the award passed by the learned Tribunal below cannot sustain in its entirety. 8. What would be compensation payable in such types of cases was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chhama Devi and others, 2019 ACJ 536, wherein it was observed as under:- "24. Admittedly in this case the deceased was minor of 17 years of age. In the case of Kishan Gopal vs. Lala, (2013) ACJ 2594 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of a minor child about 10 years. Admittedly in this case the deceased was minor of 17 years of age. In the case of Kishan Gopal vs. Lala, (2013) ACJ 2594 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of a minor child about 10 years. The accident in that case had taken place on 19.07.1992, whereas the accident in the instant case had taken place on 15.06.2010. 25. Therefore, keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the high cost of living and inflation, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be subserved in case the award, as passed by the learned Tribunal, is modified and the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- plus interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 27.07.2010." Award passed by the Award passed by the Tribunal Modified Award by this Court S.No. Heads Amount 1. Monthly income = Rs.6000 deduction 50% = Rs.3000/- Rs.3000x12x18=Rs.6,48,000/- Monthly income = Rs.6000/- deduction 50%= Rs.3000/- Rs.3000x12x16=Rs.5,76,000/- 2. - - 3. Conventional charges=Rs.1,00,000/- Conventional charges=Rs.1,00,000/- Total = Rs.7,48,000/- Total = Rs. 6,76,000/- 9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, the award passed by the learned Tribunal below is accordingly modified and the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,76,000/-. 10. It would be noticed that the learned Tribunal below has not awarded any interest on the compensation amount, constraining the claimants to file a separate appeal being FAO No. 190 of 2014. 11. For liability arising out of Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory liability and in addition to that it is more than settled that a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for deprivation which may be called interest, compensation or damages and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others vs. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508 . 12. 12. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, the appeal filed by the claimants being FAO No. 190 of 2014 is allowed by holding the claimants to be entitled to the interest, whereas FAO No. 4235 of 2013 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed and instead of awarding compensation of Rs.8,07,600/-, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,76,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 6.9.2011 till the date of payment. 13. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.