JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The instant appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellant/respondent No. 3/Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') for quashing and setting aside the impugned award, dated 4.8.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, District Mandi, in Claim Petition No. 76 of 2013 and to allow the claim petition. 2. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as under: the deceased Murari Lal alias Mohan Lal, was working as labourer-cum-Munshi, with respondent No. 1 and was deployed with Tipper bearing registration No. HP-49A-0751. He was supervising the work of carriage, loading and unloading of the articles and also to handle proper account. On 19.11.2011, the deceased was looking after the work of carriage, loading-unloading of muck being carried in the tipper for its disposal in Tirthan Khad near Khundan Bridge. Around 10:00 p.m., the tipper was reversed back by the driver rashly and negligently in a high speed. The driver tried to unload the muck in Tirthan Khad, by pulling the jacks rashly and negligently and could not control the vehicle, as a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle and rolled down about 100 feet in Tirthan Khad. As a result of this accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries throughout his body including head injury and skull injuries, which proved fatal and he died on the spot alongwith one another occupant of the vehicle. At the time of accident, the deceased was 28 years old and he was the only bread earner of the petitioner. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by filing reply taking preliminary objections qua maintainability. On merits, it has been averred that the involvements of the vehicle in question at the relevant date and time, resulting into death of deceased is also admitted, but it has been averred that danga of the road suddenly gave way while the tipper was being unloaded, as such, due to sinking of the danga, the accident took place, however respondent No. 2 was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no negligence on the part of respondent No. 2. 4. 4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company has resisted and contested the petition by filing separate reply and submitted that the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has further been averred that the deceased at the time of accident was traveling in the ill fated vehicle in capacity of gratuitous passenger and the liability of gratuitous passenger is not covered, under the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. 5. The learned Tribunal below framed following issues on 16.10.2014: "1. Whether the deceased Murari Lal alias Mohan Lal had died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the respondent No. 3 can be held liable to indemnify the amount? OPR-1 & 2. 5. Whether the vehicle was driving in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3. 6. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR-3. 7. Relief." 6. After deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner, issue Nos. 3, 5 and 6 against the respondents, issue No. 4 in favour of the respondent, the learned tribunal below allowed the petition. 7. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, in these circumstances, minimum wages were required to be taken into consideration. He has argued that minimum wages were required to be taken by the learned Tribunal below, as is applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, in the year, 2011. He has further argued that the law requires that the minimum wages, at that time, when he died was required to be taken into consideration and so, the impugned award is required to be modified, as per law. 8. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, : (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases, 680. 2. 8. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, : (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases, 680. 2. Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130. 9. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 1, has argued that even it is pleaded and proved on record that income of the deceased was Rs. 5500/-, in addition to it, he was doing agricultural work and other domestic work at home and can more than minimum wages while performing the duties, as Supervisor-cum-Munshi. He has further argued that the learned Tribunal below has not taken the minimum wages and even the minimum wages at Rs. 5500/-, the learned Tribunal below has taken Rs. 5000/- per month. He has argued that in the interest of justice, the award amount is required to be enhanced. 10. Mr. Ajeet Saklani, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has argued that the liability is rightly fixed upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 11. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire records of the case carefully. 12. The petitioner in order to prove its case has examined herself as PW-2. She has stated that the deceased died on 19.11.2011 around 10:00 p.m., at place Khundan Bridge, District Kullu, on account of the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2. She has deposed that the deceased was working, as Labourer-cum-Munshi with respondent No. 1 and was deployed with Tipper bearing registration No. HP-49A-0751 and was supervising the work of carriage, loading-unloading of the articles and also to manage proper account. She has further deposed that the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and skull injuries, which proved fatal and died on the spot alongwith one another occupant of the vehicle. She has further deposed that the deceased was the only bread earner of her family, since she is a widow lady and deceased used to contribute his maximum earning at home and she was fully dependent upon the deceased and the petitioner, who was at that time 60 years of age, due to unfortunate demise of her son, she has been left in a state of helplessness, as she was fully dependent upon the deceased. She has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. She has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 5500/- per month. 13. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have denied the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2, however, no evidence has been led to support the pleadings. The evidence of the petitioner has been fully corroborated with the contents of FIR Ex. PW1/A. The petitioner has also proved on record, copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A, registered at Police Station, Banjar, District Mandi. 14. Now, as far as income of the deceased is concerned and even as per the Minimum Wages Act, income of the deceased comes to Rs. 5500/- per month and the learned Tribunal below, has taken income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month. There is no contradiction in the statement of PW-2, when she has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 5500/- per month. Though, there was no reason to discard her statement, but there is no documentary evidence to show that the learned Tribunal below has taken income at Rs. 5000/- per month. This Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality and infirmity with the income of the deceased, as taken by the learned Tribunal below, as the petitioner was not earning only the minimum wages, but he was also earning Rs. 5500/- per month, as per the statement of his mother. Even otherwise also, income of the person, who was doing the duties, as Supervisor-cum-Munshi, required to be taken easily as Rs. 5500/- per month. This Court also finds no illegality with the findings of the learned Tribunal below while taking the income of the deceased, as Rs. 5000/- per month and thereafter, calculating the dependency. 15. Though, it has come on record that the deceased was agriculturist and looking after his land, during odd hours, but there was no documentary evidence to prove the same. Therefore, I find no illegality and infirmity being committed by the learned Tribunal below in not taking agricultural income, so the income of the deceased as taken by the learned Tribunal below to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month, is just and reasoned. 16. Now, as per the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and others case (supra), the increase of 40% is required to be taken inspite of 50%, so this way, income of the deceased comes to Rs. 5000/- per month, is just and reasoned. 16. Now, as per the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and others case (supra), the increase of 40% is required to be taken inspite of 50%, so this way, income of the deceased comes to Rs. 7000/- per month. Now, as far as deducting 50% of the amount that dependency comes to Rs. 3500/- per month. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal below should have required to be taken the dependency, as Rs. 3500/- per month, so the multiplier of 17, is required to be applied, as the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident, this way the compensation, on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3500/-. Thus, applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation payable to the petitioner comes to 3500 x 12 x 17=Rs. 7,14,000/-. Besides this, the petitioner is also held entitled for the loss of estate to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-, loss of consortium to the tune of Rs. 44,000/- and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 16,500/-. As such, the petitioner-respondent No. 1, is held entitled to the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,89,500/-. 17. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, the award rate of interest 12% per annum has been given in para-25 of the judgment. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view and taking into consideration the law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, no interference is required with regard to the rate of interest, as awarded by the learned Tribunal below at the rate of 9% per annum and as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the rate of interest is required to be reduced to 6% per annum, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussions made hereinabove and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned award is modified and the petitioner-respondent No. 1, is held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,89,500/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the payment. 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussions made hereinabove and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned award is modified and the petitioner-respondent No. 1, is held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,89,500/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the payment. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.