Hon’ble Dr. Vijay Laxmi, J.—Appellant-Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the instant First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 4.9.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Room No. 8, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”], in Claim Petition No. 100050 of 2014 : Sangeeta Srivastava v. Amit Saran and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 55,42,270/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the claimants (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) under the following heads :

1. Loss of dependency       :  Rs. 55,17,270/-

2. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 5000/-

3. Loss of Estate : Rs. 10,000/-

4. Loss of Love &        : Rs. 5000/-

   Affection

5. Additional compens-

    ation for loss of estate : Rs. 5000/-

2. The case related to death of an Assistant Teacher of Madhyamik Vidyalaya, who died in an accident on 21.12.2013 at about 5.15 p.m. when a Mini Truck No. UP 78 AT 5541 hit his Scooty from behind on which he was riding. He succumbed to injuries on the spot. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the legal heirs of the deceased, Prabodh Chandra, filed Claim Petition No. 100050/2014 before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for brevity, the ‘Act’) for grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 85,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% from the date of filing of the claim petition.

3. On the basis of evidence brought on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to negligent driving of Mini Truck driver and awarded a sum of Rs. 55,42,270/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. As is evincible from the award passed by the Tribunal, the aforesaid amount was determined as compensation on the basis that the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 45 and his monthly income was Rs. 33,449/- and annual income was Rs. 4,01,388/-. The Tribunal deducted 10% amount i.e. Rs. 24,139/- towards income tax and added 30% amount i.e. Rs. 1,13,375/- towards future prospects. Towards personal deduction 1/4th of amount was deducted and the multiplier of 15 was applied to have loss of dependency. Apart there from, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid under conventional heads of love and affection etc. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount within 60 days before the Tribunal.

4. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company does not dispute the factum of accident. It is contended that the amount of compensation is excessive and unjust.

5. The main ground of challenge raised by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is argued that the wife of the deceased Smt. Sangeeta Srivastava (respondent No. 1 herein) was having self income from Government job as a teacher in the Primary School and as such she was not dependent upon the income of the deceased. The father of the deceased Mr. Tej Bahadur Lal (respondent No. 4 herein) was also a retired person from railway service drawing pension of about Rs. 30,000/- per month, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 4 were not dependent upon the income of the deceased but the Tribunal, while ignoring these facts, erred in deducting 1/4th in place of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence the impugned award is arbitrary.

6. Elaborating his submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the date of birth of the deceased was 24.7.1971 and as such on the date of the incident i.e. 21.12.2013, his actual age was 42 years 5 months. But the Tribunal, on ignoring this fact, erred in coming to the conclusion that since the age of the deceased at the time of accident was between 40 to 45, therefore, multiplier of ‘15’ would be applied, though as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. D