The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the structured formula basis for determining compensation in motor accident cases.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 2nd November, 2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribnal, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 108 of 2009, titled as Smt. Veena Devi & others vs. The Milestone Gears Private Limited & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,77,400/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization with costs to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award").

2. The claimant, owner-insured and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them.

3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal.

4. The questions to be determined in this appeal are as under:--

(i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability?

(ii) Whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise?

5. I have gone through the impugned award. It appears that the claimants have invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘MV Act’.

6. As per the 2nd Schedule appended with the MV Act, the income slab provided is Rs. 40,000/- per annum.

7. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that the income of the deceased was Rs.3300/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in para-9 of the impugned award.

8. Having said so, the claimants have rightly filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act.

9. It is a beaten law of the land that in terms of Section 163-A of the MV Act, compensation is to be awarded “On The Structured Formula Basis”. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 163-A of the MV Act provides that the claimants are not required to plead or establish the wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle.

10. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly determined that the claimants are the victims of the vehicular accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld.

11. The Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.3300/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, but has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier of ‘16’.

12. The multiplier of ‘15’ is applicable in this case, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in, AIR 2009 SC 3104, upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others vs. Madan Mohan and another, reported in, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in, 2015 AIR SCW 3105.

13. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2200 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 3,96,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

14. The compensation awarded under other heads is just and appropriate, accordingly upheld.

15. It is a beaten law of the land that the rate of interest should be awarded as per the prevailing rates, in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in cases titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281; Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in, 2012 AIR SCW 2892 IR 2892; Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in, (2012) 11 SCC 738; Smt. Savita vs. Binder Singh & others, reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2053; Kalpanaraj & others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in, 2014 AIR SCW 2982; Amresh Kumari vs. Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in, (2015) 4 SCC 433; and Mohinder Kaur and others vs. H