JUDGMENT : 01. The present judgment shall put to quietus, a claim regarding motor vehicular accident, which took place in the year 2005, i.e. about 20 years back and the present appeal hanging fire in this Court, for about 15 years. 02. The present appeal has been directed against an award dated 31.12.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short, “the Tribunal”), in file No. 285/Claim, vide which, a claim petition preferred by the respondents, came to be allowed and the appellant insurance company was fastened with liability amounting to Rs. 5,58,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition. 03. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it shall be expedient to have an overview of background facts of the case. 04. As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, on 03.09.2005, while one Gafoor Khan was driving a new chasis of Tata 407, for body building to Jallandhar, on reaching near Stand Cholang at about 8.00 AM, it was hit by a Truck bearing Registration No. HR 37A 9742 coming from the opposite side, Bhogpur, as a result whereof, the driver of Tata 407 sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. An FIR in this respect came to be lodged by one-Inderjit Singh, who was driving his jeep behind the said vehicle of the deceased with Police Station, Bhogpur. 05. The respondents, dependents of the deceased, preferred a claim petition in the Tribunal and it was averred that deceased, at the time of accident, was 48 years of age and would have survived for another 15 years. He was a driver by profession and was earning Rs.8,500/- per month. They claimed a total compensation of Rs. 18.80 lacs from the appellant-Insurance Company. 06. It is pertinent to note that driver of the offending truck was not impleaded as party respondent in the case and owner of the vehicle despite service did not appear before the Tribunal and was set ex parte. 07. It is only the appellant-Company who entered appearance and resisted the claim of respondents inter-alia on the ground that driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license and offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the route permit and terms and conditions of insurance Policy. 08. 07. It is only the appellant-Company who entered appearance and resisted the claim of respondents inter-alia on the ground that driver of the offending truck was not holding a valid and effective driving license and offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the route permit and terms and conditions of insurance Policy. 08. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether an accident occurred on 03.09.2005 near Stand Cholag Jalandhar, Punjab by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. HR. 37A 9742 in the hands of erring driver in which diseased Gafoor Khan sustained fatal injuries. OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?. OPP 3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance Police? OPR-1 4. Relief … O. P. Parties 09. Respondent No. 1/claimant No. 1 before the Tribunal, namely, Shabana Begum besides herself appearing in the witness box, examined PW Inderjit Singh and Tuffail Ahmed to make out her claim. The appellant did not examine any witness. 10. The respondent No. 1, Shaban Begum, has deposed before the Tribunal that her deceased husband was a driver in a private transport company for 10 to 15 years and was earning Rs. 8,000 per month. She has no source of income. The deceased, at the time of accident, was 48 years of age. She spent about Rs. 50,000/- on his last rites. In cross-examination, the claimant has stated that deceased used to contribute Rs. 7,000/- p. m. to the family. 11. PW-Inderjit Singh is witnesses of the alleged occurrence and has stated that on 03.09.2005, while he was travelling in his Jeep No. 6600 towards Jalandhar, the Chassis of Tata 407, being plied ahead, was hit by a truck bearing Registration No. HR 37A 9742, being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He lodged the FIR. 12. PW-Tuffail Ahmed is witness regarding employment of the deceased. He has stated that deceased was working as a driver with his father and later with him. On 03.09.2005, while deceased was taking chasis-407 for construction of body at Jallandhar, he received an information that he met with an accident near Bhogpur, Jallandhar and died. He lodged the FIR. 12. PW-Tuffail Ahmed is witness regarding employment of the deceased. He has stated that deceased was working as a driver with his father and later with him. On 03.09.2005, while deceased was taking chasis-407 for construction of body at Jallandhar, he received an information that he met with an accident near Bhogpur, Jallandhar and died. He got post mortem of the deceased conducted. He used to pay Rs. 5,000/- p.m. to the deceased and a trip of Rs. 3,000/- in addition thereto. According to the witness, the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/-p.m. 13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I have perused the record. 14. The appellant has questioned the impugned award, primarily on the ground of quantum. 15. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the monthly dependency taken by the Tribunal is exorbitant, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 16. Since the appellant-company failed to discredit the testimonies of claimants witnesses on material aspects, learned tribunal decided issue No. 1, with respect to the occurrence and death of the deceased on spot, due to rash and negligent act of driver of the offending vehicle, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant. As already stated, the only defence taken by the appellant was that the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was being driven by its driver without license and in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, since the appellant failed to examine any witness and prove its stand before the tribunal, issue No. 3 also came to be decided against it. ON QUANTUM 17. Loss to dependants, known in legal parlance as, loss of dependency is determined by applying the multiplier method as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr reported as 2009 (3) Supreme 487 . Multiplier method in brief involves ascertainment of total income of the deceased at the time of death and the income, the deceased was accustomed to spend for himself and part of the income, the deceased would contribute to the family. The latter part is known as dependency of the dependants. Multiplier method in brief involves ascertainment of total income of the deceased at the time of death and the income, the deceased was accustomed to spend for himself and part of the income, the deceased would contribute to the family. The latter part is known as dependency of the dependants. The annual loss of dependency suffered by the dependants on account of the death is taken as ‘multiplicand’, which is then capitalized by multiplying with a figure representing the appropriate number of years purchase, popularly known as the ‘multiplier’. 18. Learned Tribunal, having regard to the oral evidence adduced by the claimants that deceased was a driver by profession and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, considered monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- as no documentary evidence with respect to monthly income of the deceased was produced by the claimants. Learned Tribunal, after deducting 1/3 rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased, accepted monthly dependency of Rs. 4,000/-. Since deceased, at the time of accident, was 48 years of age, the appropriate multiplier of 11 was applied by the Tribunal and, therefore, the total loss of income is worked out as Rs.5,28,000/-. In addition to the said amount, amount of Rs. 15,000/- each has been awarded on account of funeral expenses and consortium to the widow. Respondents have been held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 5,58,000/-. 19. Learned Tribunal, while taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances attending the case and having regard to the principal of “minimum wages” has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- which, in my opinion, is neither exorbitant nor meagre. 20. In view of the above, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed and impugned award is upheld.