Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. The present appeal preferred under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises out of an award dated 24th April, 2007 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,26,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum to the appellant from the date of filing of the petition.

2. The brief facts are that the deceased Sh. Kailash Singh Rana, aged 26 years while driving his scooter No. DL 9S G 4738 on 30th December 2004 at about 7:30 pm dropped Ms. Ramni Taneja to her residence at A-34, defense Colony, New Delhi and after finishing off his duty he left for his residence situated at Bijwasan, Delhi. At around 8:30 pm, when he was approaching the turning point of the petrol pump opposite to Shiv Murti and was about to take a right turn towards Bijwasan, suddenly a TATA Tempo bearing registration No. HR 47 6169 driven by Sh. Shambhu Kumar Singh hit the scooter badly in a rash and negligent manner from behind due to which he fell on the ground and sustained fatal injuries and was removed to AIIMS hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition on 12th May 2005 and the Tribunal passed the impugned award. Aggrieved with the award dated 24th April 2007, the appellant insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.

3. Sh. S.L. Gupta, counsel for the appellant contended that the overtime of Rs. 1000 per month considered by the learned tribunal couldnt be treated as regular income of the deceased. It has been maintained by the counsel that the multiplier of 18 applied by the learned tribunal is on the higher side and the multiplier has not been reduced for uncertainty of life by the learned tribunal. Further, it has been urged by the counsel that the future prospects could not be considered as the deceased was in a private job working as a driver. The counsel lashed out that no negligence was proved by the respondents claimants and hence the finding of the tribunal is bad in view of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal reported in AIR 2007 SC 1609 .

The counsel for the appellant has further relied on following judgments of the Apex court in this regard:

1. Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors. (1993) II LLJ 664 SC

2. Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu and Ors. (2005) 8 Sca 173

.4. Per Contra, Sh. Sanjeev K. Tiwari, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has vehemently controverter the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. The counsel while relying on the deposition of PW4, Ms. Ramni Taneja, employer of the deceased contended that the employer of the deceased her self submitted that the deceased was working as a driver on the salary of Rs. 5000 per month besides earning a sum of Rs. 2,500 per month on account of over time. The counsel further urged that Ms. Ramni Taneja is a respectable member of the Bar and is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court and Delhi high Court and the deceased used to work overtime on regular basis in a month because of her professional association with various senior advocates with whom she used to attend various conferences. Hence, the overtime of Rs. 1000 per month considered by the learned tribunal could be treated as regular income of the deceased. Regarding the issue of future prospects the counsel maintained that in her cross examination PW4, Ms. Ramni Taneja had submitted that she would have paid him Rs. 1000 per annum as increment plus overtime because the deceased was a sincere, diligent and a dedicated employee. Further, reliance was placed on the deposition of PW3, Sh. Abhishek Ojha, working as secretary and accounts executive of Ms. Ramni Taneja, who deposed in his cross examination that the deceased had joined at a salary of Rs. 4250 which was subsequently increased to Rs. 5000. Hence, the tribunal has correctly considered the future prospects of the deceased. The counsel has also stoutly denied