The age of the deceased as well as the age-group of the claimants is required to be taken into consideration while adopting a multiplier for determining the dependency to award compensation to the claimants.

G.S. Singhvi, J. - Appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited has assailed the compensation award of Rs. 1,46,000/- given in favour of respondent-claimants Raj Rani, Surjit Kumar and Jaswinder Kumar in connection with claim petition No. 85 of 1993 decided on May 24, 1995.

2. A brief resume of the facts is that on June 27, 1993, Jagdish Kumar deceased was going on scooter No. DB-42-0335 to Patiala. Bhim Sain was sitting on the pillion seat. Surjit Kumar, brother of deceased Jagdish Kumar, was following him on his own scooter No. PB-11-7742 with his father Krishan Lal as pillion rider. When they crossed Bus Stand, Denthal, truck No. PB-11-C-5373 driven by Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh son of Dayal Singh of Majri, Samana, came from the opposite direction. Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh rammed his truck into the scooter of deceased Jagdish Kumar. Jagdish Kumar and Bhim Sain fell on the ground. Jagdish Kumar sustained multiple injuries and became unconscious. His scooter was also damaged. Surjit KUmar and Krishan Lal took Jagdish Kumar and Bhim Sain to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, where both of them were got admitted. Surjit Kumar lodged the FIR at the Police Station Samana. On July 4, 1993, as condition of Jagdish Kumar became serious, he was taken to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he breatched his last on the same day. Jagdish Kumar aged 25 years, unmarried, was earning Rs. 2500/- per month by doing the business of selling footwears. It is alleged that claimant-respondent Raj Rani is his mother and claimant-respondents Surjit Kumar and Jaswinder Kumar are his brothers. At the time of filing of the claim petition Jaswinder Kumar was minor. The claimants claimed Rs. 4,50,000/- for vehicular death of Jagdish Kumar. They also claimed Rs. 15,000/- spent on the treatment of Jagdish Kumar and Rs. 7287/- for repairs of the scooter.

3. Sukhwinder singh alias Sukh Singh driver denied that the said truck was involved in the accident. He further averred that his name is not Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh but his name is Sukhbir Singh. He denied all other allegations made in the petition.

4. Mohan Lal, owner of the aforesaid truck, admitted that Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha Singh son of Dayal Singh was driver of his truck on the relevant date, but he pleaded inter alia that the driver was driving his truck at a very slow speed and this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased.

5. Appellant-Insurance Company also denied all the material facts though admitted that this truck was insured with it. It denied its liability to pay compensation on the count that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. Specific plea was taken that the maximum liability of the Insurance Company is Rs. 6000/- only.

6. Parties adduced evidence to prove their allegations.

7. The learned Claims Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that Sukhwinder Singh respondent was driving the offending truck at the relevant time and this accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said truck by him. It also held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that on the date of accident respondent-Sukhwinder Singh was not having valid driving licence, as the driver had produced his driving licence Exhibit R-1, which was not verified by the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal also held that the deceased was aged 25 years; he was unmarried and was earning 1500/- per month. The claimants are mother and younger brothers of the deceased, who were dependents on him. No doubt, husband of claimant-Raj Rani is alive and is earning also, but the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to recover compensation as they were dependents of the deceased. Monthly income of the deceased was assessed to Rs. 1500/-. Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, dependency was determined at Rs. 1000/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 12, Rs. 1,44,000/- plus R. 2,000/- as expenses for treatment were awarded