JUDGMENT : Mohan Lal, J. 1. Appellants (being the father, mother and brother of deceased) by preferring Civil 1st Misc. Appeal, have impugned the judgment and award dated 05.10.2009 passed by Ld. Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal Jammu in File No. 796/claim (D.O.I. 28.01.2008, D.O.D. 05.10.2009) on the following grounds:- (i) that deceased Gurmeet Singh (age 28 years), running a Fast Food and Sweet Restaurant under the name and style of "M/s Gurmeet Fast Food" and earning Rs.8000/- per month, at the time of accident on 19.12.2007 at about 11 a.m. while standing at Tali Morh Simbal Camp Jammu on the right side of the road met with an accident when motorcycle bearing Registration No. JK02AE-8856 being driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1 hit the deceased resulting into his death, the Ld. Tribunal while assessing the income of deceased arrived at the conclusion based on evidence that deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day as such the income has been fixed at Rs.6000/- per month, but the tribunal fixed the income of deceased at Rs.5000/- only which is an error apparent on the face of the judgment; (ii) that the Ld. Tribunal below has erred in fixing the multiplier in the case as 7 on the age of appellants (mother) who was 52 years of age which is quite on lower side whereas the multiplier should have been 11, so keeping in view the aforesaid grounds, the award of appellants should have been around Rs.6000 x 1/3rd x 12 x 11 = Rs.5,28,000/-; (iii) the Ld. Tribunal without application of mind for fixing the income as well as the multiplier has passed the award wrongly in the sum of Rs.2,95,000/-, which may be enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/- or the Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition. (1) Whether an accident occurred on 19.12.2007 at Tali Morh Simbal Camp Jammu by the rash and negligent driving of offending Vehicle No. 8856 JK02AE being driven rashly and negligently in the hand of earring driver in which deceased Gurmeet Singh sustain fatal injuries? ...OPP (2) If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? ...OPP (2) If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? ...OPP (3) Whether at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance [policy]? OPR-3 (4) Relief........................................................OP Parties? 3. Ld. Counsel for the parties noted down the issues. Appellants (petitioners before the Tribunal) were directed to lead evidence first. To prove the averments of the claim petition, Appellant No. 1 examined himself as PW-1 alongwith his only one witness PW-2 Iqbal Singh. In rebuttal, respondents did not examine any witness. 4. Before rendering the findings on the issues framed in the claim petition, it is pertinent to give a brief resume of the evidence led by the appellants (petitioners before the Tribunal). Relevant portions of the testimonies of appellant's witnesses recorded before the Tribunal for the sake of appreciation are summarized as under:- 5. APPELLANT'S (PETITIONER'S) EVIDENCE:- PW-1 Prithpal Singh has deposed, that on 19.12.2007 his son met an accident at Tali Morh Miran Sahib at 4/4:30 hrs with a motorcycle. Deceased was running a shop of Fast Food in the name of M/s Gurmeet Fast Food and was earning Rs.200/300 per day. He has another son Petitioner No. 3 who is a young but is mentally disturbed. He has his wife. He does not do any work. They were dependent upon the deceased. In cross-examination stated that he does not work for whole life. His wife also does not do any work but only do household activities. He was selling milk to earn livelihood. Deceased was not married. His other son is mentally disturbed. The claim petition does not bear the signature of Petitioner No. 3. He presented the claim petition a year prior. Deceased had told him that he earns Rs.200/- per day. PW-2 Iqbal Singh has stated that on 19.12.2007 at about 11 a.m. he and deceased were standing at Tali Morh Simbal. A Motorcycle No. JK02AE 8856 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from Jammu side and hit against the deceased. They were waiting for a matador for going to Simbal Camp. Deceased was severely injured. He and other people took the deceased/ injured to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where he was referred to GMC Jammu where he died. A Motorcycle No. JK02AE 8856 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from Jammu side and hit against the deceased. They were waiting for a matador for going to Simbal Camp. Deceased was severely injured. He and other people took the deceased/ injured to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where he was referred to GMC Jammu where he died. He informed the parents of the deceased about the accident. The accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle while coming on wrong side. In cross-examination stated that accident occurred on left side road on kacha portion. He was not injured in this accident. The motorcyclist fled from the spot after the accident. Petitioner is not related to him. His statement was recorded by the police at Gandhi Nagar hospital. He does not know the name of motorcyclist but police asked him to give evidence. Petitioner is a Govt. retiree. He has another son. 6. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment carefully. I have also bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the material aspects involved in the claim petition and have gone through the relevant law on the subject matter meticulously. The issue-wise findings are rendered as under. 7. Issue No. 1:- This issues is to the effect "Whether an accident occurred on 19.12.2007 at Tali Morh Simbal Camp Jammu by the rash and negligent driving of offending Vehicle No. 8856 JK02AE being driven rashly and negligently in the hand of earring driver in which deceased Gurmeet Singh sustain fatal injuries"? OPP The burden of proof of this issue lies on the appellants (petitioners). In the claim petition, petitioners have averred, that on 19.12.2007 at about 11 a.m. Gurmeet Singh (deceased) was standing at Tali Morh Simbal Camp on his own side of the road when Respondent No. 1 while driving Motorcycle No. JK02AE 8856 rashly and negligently came from Jammu side and while coming on wrong side hit the deceased who sustain multiple injuries resulting into his death. PW-1 Prithpal Singh (f/o deceased) & PW-2 Iqbal Singh in their depositions before the Tribunal have corroborated the averments of the claim petition by deposing that on 19.12.2007 deceased Gurmeet Singh (S/o Appellant/Petitioner No. 1) met an accident at Tali Morh Simbal Camp Miran Sahib with motorcycle, as a result of which, deceased got severely injured, people took him to Gandhi Nagar Hospital from where he was referred to GMC Jammu where he died. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the appellants evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the Appellant No. 1 and his witness. In rebuttal, respondents have not examined any witness to disprove the factum of accident. Appellants (petitioners) by leading cogent, trustworthy, inspiring, credible and overwhelming evidence, have proved, that an accident occurred on 19.12.2007 at Tali Morh Simbal Camp Jammu by the rash and negligent driving of offending Vehicle No. 8856 JK02AE being driven rashly and negligently in the hand of earring driver in which deceased Gurmeet Singh sustain fatal injuries and died. Issue No. 1, therefore, has been rightly proved and decided by Ld. Tribunal in favour of appellants as against the respondents and the finding of the Tribunal to that extent does not require any interference which stands upheld/affirmed. 8. Issue No. 2:- This issue is to the effect, "If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner are entitled to compensation; if so to what extent and from whom"? OPP Burden of proof of this issue lies on the appellants (petitioners). Issue No. 1 has been proved and decided in favour of the appellants as against respondents and it has been proved that on 19.12.2007 at Tali Morh Simbal Camp Jammu by the rash and negligent driving of offending Vehicle No. 8856 JK02AE in the hands of earring driver, deceased Gurmeet Singh sustain fatal injuries and died. Now, the core issue that falls for consideration is, as to what amount of compensation the appellants are entitled to in the claim petition and from whom? Human life is invaluable and it is more difficult to assess the loss on account of death of a person. Nobody can suggest any arithmetical calculation as to what can be the exact amount of loss in terms of money accrued to the family of the deceased because of the untimely death of the earning member. Human life is invaluable and it is more difficult to assess the loss on account of death of a person. Nobody can suggest any arithmetical calculation as to what can be the exact amount of loss in terms of money accrued to the family of the deceased because of the untimely death of the earning member. However, damages are recoverable for loss of pecuniary benefits and the right of each dependent is on reasonable expectation of pecuniary damage from the continuance of the life of the deceased. Obviously, it is important to determine what contribution the deceased would have made had the cruel hands of accident not snatched away him. In the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Appellants v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. Respondents, [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ], Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while appreciating the relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in death cases, in paragraphs 7 & 9 held as under:- "Para-7:-Before considering the questions arising for decision, it would be appropriate to recall the relevant principles relating to assessment of compensation in cases of death. Earlier, there used to be considerable variation and inconsistency in the decisions of courts Tribunals on account of some adopting the Nance method enunciated in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Rly. Co. Ltd. [1951 AC 601] and some adopting the Davies method enunciated in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942 AC 701]. The difference between the two methods was considered and explained by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Sysamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 SC 176. After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. We extract below the principles laid down in Sysamma Thomas: "In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependant as a result of the death. v. Sysamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 SC 176. After exhaustive consideration, this Court preferred the Davies method to Nance method. We extract below the principles laid down in Sysamma Thomas: "In fatal accident action, the measure of damage is the pecuniary loss suffered and is likely to be suffered by each dependant as a result of the death. The assessment to damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether." The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct there from such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalized by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of year's purchase. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well-established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage there from towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific. For instance, if the deceased was, say 25 year of age at the time of death and the life expectancy is 70 years, this method would multiply the loss of dependency for 45 years virtually adopting a multiplier of 45 and even if one-third or one-fourth is deducted there from towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible." "Para-9:- Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps: Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added". Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as for as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles, it is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. In view of the ratio of the judgment (Supra) and principles of law deduced there from, the determining of the amount of compensation to the petitioners can be categorized under the following heads:- (A) Annual loss of dependency. (B) Age of deceased at the time of accident. (C) Multiplier to be applied, and (D) Total future loss of dependency. In view of the ratio of the judgment (Supra) and principles of law deduced there from, the determining of the amount of compensation to the petitioners can be categorized under the following heads:- (A) Annual loss of dependency. (B) Age of deceased at the time of accident. (C) Multiplier to be applied, and (D) Total future loss of dependency. (A) ANNUAL LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:- In view of the settled position of law discussed above, for awarding compensation in fatal cases of death, the tribunal has to fix monthly loss of the income to the petitioners at the time of death of the deceased. In the claim petition, appellants (petitioner before the Tribunal) have indicated that their deceased son was running a Fast Food and Sweet Restaurant under the name and Style of M/s Gurmeet Fast Food and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Appellant No. 1 (PW-1 Prithpal Singh F/o deceased) has tendered evidence before the Tribunal that deceased by running business of Fast Food in shop was earning Rs.200/300 per day. Taking into account the daily earning of the deceased even too the lower side of Rs.200, the monthly income of deceased therefore when calculated comes to [Rs.200 x 30] = Rs.6000/- which has remained un-rebutted by the respondents, as they have led no evidence to disprove the said income of deceased. Ld. Tribunal has erred in calculating the monthly income of the deceased, as on one hand, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- and for no justifiable reasons, the said income of deceased has been slashed/reduced to Rs.5000/- per month. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the evidence tendered by the appellants (petitioners) before the Tribunal, the monthly income of the deceased at the time of his accidental death is fixed at Rs.6000/-. Perusal of the judgment/award rendered by the Ld. Tribunal Jammu depicts that the age of deceased who was a bachelor at the time of his accidental death was 28 years. Perusal of the judgment/award rendered by the Ld. Tribunal Jammu depicts that the age of deceased who was a bachelor at the time of his accidental death was 28 years. As per the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case law reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.) [vide para 39 sub-paras 31 & 32] 50% of his monthly income i.e. [Rs.6000 x 50/100] Rs.3000/- has to be deducted from his monthly income for his personal and living expenses which when calculated comes to Rs.6000 - Rs.3000 = Rs.3000/-. In the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) Hon'ble Supreme while determining the future prospects in cases of self-employed or fixed salaried (deceased) and while fixing the quantum of compensation in regard to the heads viz.; loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, in head note A & in paragraph 61 of the judgment held as under:- (A) Motor vehicles Act (59 of 1988) Ss. 166, 168-Compensation-Future prospects-Determination-(I) Self-employed of fix salaried deceased:- Deceased below 40 years addition of 40%; between 40-50 years, addition of 25%; and between 50-60 years, addition of 10% of established income to be made. (II) Deceased with permanent job:- Deceased below 40 years, addition of 50%; between 40 to 50 years addition of 30% and between 50 to 60 years, addition of 15% of actual salary of income of deceased towards future prospects to be made. 61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi ( AIR 2012 SC 2185 ) should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma ( AIR 2009 SC 3104 ), a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474), which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before. vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. Ratio of the judgment (Supra) of "Pranay Sethi" makes the legal proposition abundantly clear, that where the deceased was self-employed and below 40 years of age an addition of 40% of income is to be made and for the loss of estate, loss of consortium & funeral expenses the reasonable compensation should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- & Rs.15,000/- respectively. Ratio of the judgment (Supra) of "Pranay Sethi" makes the legal proposition abundantly clear, that where the deceased was self-employed and below 40 years of age an addition of 40% of income is to be made and for the loss of estate, loss of consortium & funeral expenses the reasonable compensation should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- & Rs.15,000/- respectively. Applying the ratio of the judgment (Supra) and the guidelines laid therein to the facts of the case in hand, as the deceased was running private business of Fast Food & Sweet Shop and was getting of Rs.3,000/- per month and was below 40 years of age, therefore, there would be an addition of 40% of the income in monthly income of the deceased which when calculated becomes [Rs.3,000 + 40% of Rs.3,000] i.e. Rs.3,000 + Rs.1,200 = Rs.4,200/- which is the monthly loss of income to the deceased. For assessing the annual loss of dependency, monthly loss of income is to be multiplied by 12 which when calculated comes to Rs.4,200 x 12 = Rs.50,400/-. (B) AGE OF DECEASED AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENT:- From the perusal of impugned judgment/award rendered by the Ld. Tribunal Jammu, age of deceased Gurmeet Singh at the time of his accidental death has been referred as 28 years which has not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, the age of deceased at the time of his death is fixed at 28 years. (C) MULTIPLIER TO BE APPLIED:- Age of deceased at the time of his accidental death has been fixed as 28 years. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ] while calculating the multiplier to be adopted by the Tribunal and the Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 44 of the judgment at page 5173, 5174 held as under:- 44. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 AIR 2009 SC 3104 , para 21) of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below:- "42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 AIR 2009 SC 3104 , para 21) of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below:- "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." Ratio of the judgment (Supra) of "Pranay Sethi" makes the legal proposition manifestly clear, that for the age group of 28 multiplier of 17 should be used. In 2018 (1) Law Herald (SC) 350 Sube Singh & Anr. Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors.] Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, that the multiplier should depend on the age of deceased and not on the age of dependants. In 2019 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1152 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that it is the age of deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of dependants for determining the multiplier. In 2019 (3) Law Herald (SC) 2337 [Smt. Sunita Tokas & Anr. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.] Hon'ble Supreme Court further held, that in case of accidental death the multiplier has to be applied on the age of deceased and not on the basis of age of dependants. It is pertinent to reiterate here, that Ld. In 2019 (3) Law Herald (SC) 2337 [Smt. Sunita Tokas & Anr. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.] Hon'ble Supreme Court further held, that in case of accidental death the multiplier has to be applied on the age of deceased and not on the basis of age of dependants. It is pertinent to reiterate here, that Ld. Tribunal vide impugned judgment/award while determining the multiplier has taken into consideration the age of elder member of the family who is father of the deceased and appellant No. 1 herein having age 56 years, for which multiplier of 8 as provided in the 2nd schedule to Motor Vehicles Act has been adopted which has been further reduced to 6 and on the basis whereof the amount of compensation has been calculated. By the ratios of Judgments (Supra) of "Pranay Sethi", "Sube Singh", "Mandala Yadagari Goud" & "Smt. Sunita Tokas" the controversy in regard to adopting of multiplier has been laid to rest, and now the legal position is settled that the multiplier has to be adopted on the age of deceased and not on the age of the parents. In the case in hand, the age of deceased at the time of his accidental death has been fixed at 28 years, therefore, the multiplier of 17 is appropriate. Ld. Tribunal has wrongly calculated and adopted the multiplier on the age of Appellant No. 1 (f/o deceased). Therefore, in the case in hand, multiplier of 17 is applicable. (D) TOTAL FUTURE LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:- It is profitable to reiterate here, that annual loss of dependency has been calculated and assessed as Rs.50,400/-; age of deceased at the time of his accidental death as proved by cogent and unimpeachable evidence has been fixed at 28 years and multiplier of 17 has been found applicable in the case in hand. For determining the total future loss of dependency, the annual loss of dependency is to be multiplied by an appropriate multiplier. Therefore, in the case in hand, the total future loss of dependency, comes to Rs.50,400/- x 17 = Rs.8,56,800/- (Rs. eight lacs, fifty six thousand eight hundred only). Appellants 1 & 2 being father & mother while Appellant No. 3 being brother of deceased, have lost the company of the deceased at the prime of his age at 28 years, therefore, they have suffered mental shock and agony alongwith loss of estate. eight lacs, fifty six thousand eight hundred only). Appellants 1 & 2 being father & mother while Appellant No. 3 being brother of deceased, have lost the company of the deceased at the prime of his age at 28 years, therefore, they have suffered mental shock and agony alongwith loss of estate. As per the ratio of the judgment of "Pranay Sethi" (Supra), appellants (petitioners) in the case in hand, in addition to future loss of income are also entitled to the compensation under the conventional heads viz.; loss of estate & funeral expenses in the sum of Rs.15,000/- under each head. The offending vehicle bearing Registration No. 8856 JK02AE at the time of accident was in the ownership of Respondent No. 2 and under the insurance cover of Respondent No. 1 (ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Town Hall Building 1st Floor Administrative Block Jammu). Therefore, Respondent No. 1 has to indemnify the owner of vehicle, hence, the award amount shall be paid by Respondent No. 1 to the appellants. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, Ld. Tribunal has wrongly calculated the total future loss of dependency to the appellants in the sum of Rs.2,79,999/-, therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal to the said extent in regard to Issue No. 2 is modified, and the future loss of dependency to the appellants as calculated comes to Rs.8,56,800/- (Rs. eight lacs, fifty six thousand, eight hundred only). 9. Issue No. 3:- This issue is to the effect, "Whether at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance [policy]"? OPR-3 Onus of proof of this issue lies on Respondent No. 3. No evidence has been led by Respondent No. 3 to prove that at the time of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and he drew the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. This being so, Issue No. 3 stands proved and decided against R-3 and in favour of the appellants. Ld. Tribunal has rendered correct finding in regard to Issue No. 3. Therefore, I don't find any reason to interfere with or to upset the finding rendered by the Ld. Tribunal, which stands upheld/affirmed. 10. Issue No. 4:- Relief. ........................ OP Parties? This being so, Issue No. 3 stands proved and decided against R-3 and in favour of the appellants. Ld. Tribunal has rendered correct finding in regard to Issue No. 3. Therefore, I don't find any reason to interfere with or to upset the finding rendered by the Ld. Tribunal, which stands upheld/affirmed. 10. Issue No. 4:- Relief. ........................ OP Parties? Onus of proof of this issue lies on the parties to the claim petition. Issues 1, 2 & 3 have been proved and decided in favour of the appellants as against the respondents with slight modification as enumerated in the preceding paras of the judgment. Appellants by leading cogent, credible, overwhelming and inspiring evidence, have succeeded in establishing and proving their claim for compensation from the respondents. In the final analysis, appellants are entitled to the compensation from the respondents. In the final analysis, appellants are entitled to the compensation on account of the death of the deceased under the following heads:- (i) Compensation for total future loss of dependency; Rs.8,56,800/- (ii) Compensation on account of loss of estate; Rs.15000/- (iii) Compensation on account of funeral expenses Rs.15000/- Total Amount of Compensation Rs.8,86,800/- Accordingly, the appellants (petitioners) are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.8,86,800/- (Rs. eight lacs, eighty six thousand, eight hundred only) minus interim relief if already received. The Ld. Tribunal vide impugned judgment/award dated 05.10.2009 has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,95,000/- (Rs. two lacs, ninety five thousand only) in favour of the appellants which as per the averments of appeal (para 6) stands deposited with the Tribunal, and till date, the appellants have not withdrawn the said award amount, the appellants therefore, are entitled to receive the said amount of award. Additionally, the appellants are further entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation/award in the sum of Rs.5,91,800/- [Rs.8,86,800 - Rs.2,95,000/-] which shall also be paid by Respondent No. 1 to the appellants in equal shares with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present appeal till the realization of award amount. No order as to costs. Copy of this award be sent to Respondent No. 1 for compliance forthwith. Appeal with the aforesaid modification in the award amount is allowed. 11. Disposed off accordingly.