JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “The Act”), has been filed by the appellant/ insurer against award dated 14.11.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (Sarkaghat Court) in claim petition No. 14/2017. 2. A motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-28A-3144 met with an accident on 09.09.2016 at about 9.10 A.M. at village Parchhu, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. At the time of accident, the motor cycle was driven by Nishant Verma respondent No.2 herein, (hereinafter referred to as the owner-cum-rider). One Gian Chand who was on the pillion suffered injuries in the accident and as a result thereof died. 3. The wife of deceased Gian Chand filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of his late husband. The deceased was stated to be 56 years old at the time of accident. His monthly income was alleged to be Rs.60,838/- (Rs.48,838 earned from salary and Rs.12,000/- from agriculture). The deceased was working as Kanungo at Rakhoh Circle, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. 4. The claimant alleged that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-rider. 5. The owner-cum-rider filed his reply. The factum of accident was admitted. The deceased disclosed that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant/insurer. 6. The appellant/insurer also filed its separate reply. The objection was taken that the particulars of insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident and driving licence held by the rider were not supplied to it, in absence of which, no effective defence could be put up. In alternative, it was submitted that the rider was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The violation of terms and conditions of the policy was also alleged. It was specifically stated that the rider on the pillion was not covered under the policy of insurance. 7. In rejoinder filed by the claimant, it was clarified that all the documents viz., copy of FIR, copy of postmortem report, copy of death certificate, copy of insurance, copy of driving licence, copy of registration certificate and copy of salary statement of deceased had been supplied to the insurer. 8. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues on 15.06.2018: 1. 7. In rejoinder filed by the claimant, it was clarified that all the documents viz., copy of FIR, copy of postmortem report, copy of death certificate, copy of insurance, copy of driving licence, copy of registration certificate and copy of salary statement of deceased had been supplied to the insurer. 8. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues on 15.06.2018: 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2 and caused death of petitioner, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as claimed? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having valid and effective licence at the time of accident? OPR 5. Whether the respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? OPR 6. Whether the petition is collusive one, as alleged? OPR 7. Whether the pillion rider is not covered under the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR 8. Whether the insurance company is entitled to defend the instant application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act 9. Relief. 9. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative. Rest of the issues were answered in negative. The claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.40,20,932/- was assessed as compensation payable to the claimant and other legal representatives of deceased. In addition, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation was also ordered to be paid from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization. 10. The learned Tribunal has held that except for the income of deceased from the salary paid to him by his employer, no other income being earned by him from any other source was proved. The salary of the deceased was considered on the basis of a document Ext. PW-2/A at Rs.48,838/- per month. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the monthly income of deceased towards his personal expenses and the net contribution of the deceased towards the claimant was assessed at Rs. 36,629/- per month by applying the multiplier of 9, the total amount towards loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.39,55,932/-. In addition, compensation under the heads funeral charges, loss of consortium and loss of estate has been awarded at the rate of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively 11. 36,629/- per month by applying the multiplier of 9, the total amount towards loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.39,55,932/-. In addition, compensation under the heads funeral charges, loss of consortium and loss of estate has been awarded at the rate of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively 11. The liability to satisfy the award has been fastened on the insurer/appellant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 13. Sh. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer/ appellant would submit that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is excessive as against the settled principles of law. According to him, learned Tribunal has erred in considering the gross salary of deceased as his income, whereas, such income was subject to deduction on account of payment of income tax. He would further submit that the multiplier has been wrongly applied on uniform basis, which after taking into consideration, the fact that the deceased was to retire in two years, had to be a split multiplier i.e. for the period upto retirement on the full monthly income and thereafter for remainder of the period on half of the income earned by the deceased as monthly salary. He would further submit that the wife of the deceased had shown herself to be the only dependent and thus, the personal expenses of the deceased should have been deducted @ 50%. He would also submit that the compensation under the heads of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate have to be strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that all the legal representatives of deceased were dependent upon him and for such reason, 1/5th of the monthly income of deceased was liable to be deducted towards personal expenses. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has not awarded the loss of consortium to each of the dependents of the deceased. According to him, the compensation under the head of loss of estate also was to be assessed at Rs.15,000/-. He also claimed enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. According to him, the compensation under the head of loss of estate also was to be assessed at Rs.15,000/-. He also claimed enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. It has further been pointed out that the learned Tribunal has not awarded anything towards the loss on account of future prospects. 15. Learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the salary certificate of the deceased Ext. PW-2/A. In the said certificate itself, a sum of Rs.500/- was shown deducted on account of income tax. In absence of any other evidence on record as to the actual amount deductible from the income of the deceased on account of income tax, a sum of Rs.500/- per month atleast was required to be deducted. The monthly income of the deceased, thus would be Rs.48,338/-. Learned Tribunal has held all the legal representatives of deceased entitled to the compensation. The award to this effect is in consonance with the provisions of Section 166 (1) (c) and first proviso to that Section which reads as under: “166 (1) (c) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made, where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 16. In the instant case, the petition nowhere mentioned that the claimant had filed the petition for all the legal representatives of the deceased. The other legal representatives of deceased were not impleaded as respondents also. However, since the mandate of aforesaid provision is to make application on behalf of or for all legal representatives, therefore, even in absence of procedural formalities the claim petition shall be deemed to be filed on behalf of all the legal representatives. 17. The other legal representatives of deceased were not impleaded as respondents also. However, since the mandate of aforesaid provision is to make application on behalf of or for all legal representatives, therefore, even in absence of procedural formalities the claim petition shall be deemed to be filed on behalf of all the legal representatives. 17. In Manjuri Bera (Smt.) vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2007) 10 SCC 643 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there was no dependence, there is a loss to the estate and a person who is legal representative but not dependent can yet be beneficiary of the estate. In this view of the matter, the award of compensation by learned Tribunal in favour of all the legal representatives of the deceased needs no interference except to the extent that the son of the deceased will not be entitled to the benefit of award as he was none other than the owner-cum-rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident and for such reason he cannot be held entitled to compensation. 18. In Pranay Sethi (supra), it has been held that for determination of multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the Tribunal and Courts shall be governed by paras 32 and 33 of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 . In Sarla Verma (supra), it was held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th where the number of dependents of deceased family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependents family members exceed 6. Thus, the ratio prescribed for deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has been related to the number of dependent family members. Thus, keeping the facts of the instant case in view, it can be inferred that except for the married daughters and son of deceased, all other members of his family i.e. the wife and mother were dependent on him. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the wife and mother of the deceased were having their own independent source of income. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the wife and mother of the deceased were having their own independent source of income. Since, the daughters were married, in ordinary course their dependence would be on their respective spouses and the son has already been held not entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, in this case, would be 1/3rd instead of 1/4th as made by learned Tribunal. After such deduction, the monthly dependency can be assessed at Rs.32,226/-. 19. Coming to the next contention of learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, in Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another (2014) 1 ACJ 526 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “ 32 . For determination of compensation in motor accident claims under Section 166, this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in selection of multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), prepared a Table for selection of multiplier based on age group of the deceased/victim. The Act, 1988 does not envisage application of split multiplier. 33. In R.K. Madhusudhan vs. Administrative Officer, 2011 ACJ 743 (SC), this Court held as follows: “(14)…..In the appeal, which was filed by the appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospects of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the II column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6. 15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.” 34. 15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.” 34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the Tribunal or the court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), as affirmed in the case of Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC).” 20. In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the selection of multiplier as indicated in the table in Sarla Verma (supra) read with para 42 of that judgment. In Sarla Verma , the scale of multiplier has been provided in column (4) of the table reproduced in para 40 of the judgment and thereafter in para 42 of the judgment it has been held as under: “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 31-35 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. 21. While making the above expositions, the splitting of monthly dependency during the different periods of time has not been evolved. By implication, such a concept was not held to exist. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 103819 of 2016, decided on 21.04.2021 titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sharada and others, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 101590/2015 and Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 100161/2016, decided on 22.07.2019, titled Divisional Manager, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sharada and others, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 101590/2015 and Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 100161/2016, decided on 22.07.2019, titled Divisional Manager, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others vs. Shivaji Bin Maruti Dalavi and others, judgment of the same High Court (Bengaluru) on 09.09.2020 in Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 6607 and 6470 of 2016, titled Legal Manager, IFFCO Tokio GIC Ltd. and others vs. A.S. Mohan Sunder and others and Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 1000 and 97/2016, decided on 22.09.2020, titled Shanthamma and others vs. The Managing Director, KSRTC and others to assert that the concept of split multiplier has been recognized by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Having gone through these judgments, I do not find that the above concept has been considered as an absolute rule even by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, rather, it is held that there is no mandatory rule to apply the split multiplier in all cases. It has been observed that as the future prospects are granted and a person, who is going to retire shortly in such case, split multiplier can be applied. 23. In the facts of the case at hand, admittedly, nothing has been awarded to the claimants on account of future prospects. Since, in the instant case, nothing on account of future prospects has been granted, the application of multiplier on the monthly dependency would be equitable and justifiable to arrive at the amount of just compensation. 24. In addition, the award shall include a sum of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads funeral charges and loss of estate. Addition of an amount @ 10% on the said amount of Rs.30,000/- is liable to be made after every three years. 25. As the wife and mother of the deceased have been found to be dependents on the deceased, both of them, will be entitled to loss of consortium @ Rs.40,000/- in tune with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and later judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs . Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 . On this count also, the enhancement @ 10% after every three years will be applicable. 26. In light of above discussion, the compensation awardable in the instant case shall be: Sr. No. Heads Calculation 1. Loss of dependency Rs.32,226x12x9=34,80,408/- 2. Funeral charges Rs. 15,000/- 3. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 . On this count also, the enhancement @ 10% after every three years will be applicable. 26. In light of above discussion, the compensation awardable in the instant case shall be: Sr. No. Heads Calculation 1. Loss of dependency Rs.32,226x12x9=34,80,408/- 2. Funeral charges Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4. Consortium Rs. 80,000/- 5. Enhancement @ 10% after every 3 years on items (2 to 4) Rs. 22,000/- Total Rs. 36,12,408/- 27. In addition, interest @ 7.5% per annum as awarded by learned Tribunal on the entire compensation amount shall also be payable from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization. 28. The compensation shall be apportioned between the legal representatives of the deceased as under: Sr. No. Relation with deceased Amount 1. Wife Rs. 24,00,000/- 2. Daughters (Rs. 2,00,000/- each) Rs. 8,00,000/- 3. Mother Rs. 4,12,408/- 29. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (Sarkaghat Court) in claim petition No. 14/2017 on 14.11.2018 shall stand modified in the above terms. 30. The pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.