By the Court.—This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the judgment and award dated 13.5.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 6)/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Allahabad awarding a sum of Rs. 7,18,500/- alongwith 7% simple interest as compensation on account of death of predecessor-in-interest of the claimant-respondents in a motor accident.

2. Facts are that an application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 25.00 lacs on the allegations that on 19.3.2014 Lal Chand while returning home from clinic of Dr. S. K. Katiyar was hit by offending Truck No. UP 92T/3842 which was being driven rashly and negligently at 07:15 AM on Hallet Bridge which resulted in grievous injuries. He was taken to Hallet hospital, Kanpur where he died during treatment. It was further pleaded that deceased was aged 34 years and was earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month from dairy business and Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. Proceedings were contested by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the New India Assurance Company by filing written statement denying the allegations.

3. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and after analysing the evidence brought on record by the parties both oral and documentary held that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. Tribunal recorded the said finding on the basis of the oral testimony of eye-witness Pappu Yadav, P. W. ‘2’, who proved the manner and mode of accident. It was stated by him that he was coming from behind on his motor cycle and saw the accident with his own eyes. He also stated that he took injured to the hospital alongwith help of public and police. The testimony of P. W. ‘2’ was unshakable in cross-examination. Tribunal also took into account the testimony of driver of offending vehicle who though denied the accident but admitted that truck was apprehended by the police at the site of the accident and was later on released from the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that tribunal has wrongly and illegally applied the multiplier of 17 and the tribunal ought to have applied multiplier prescribed in second schedule to Motor Vehicles Act. It is also submitted that compensation awarded is highly excessive.

5. On the question of quantum, tribunal finding that claimants failed to lead any evidence to establish the averments that deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from dairy business and Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture presumed his notional income as Rs. 3000/- per month. Tribunal added 50% of notional income towards future prospects and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and after applying multiplier of 17 determined the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,88,500/-. Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 7,18,500/- was determined as compensation payable to the claimants.

6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has held that multiplier to be used should be as provided in column 4 of the judgment. Multiplier prescribed for the age group of 31 to 34 years in the said judgment is 17. It may be relevant to quote para 42 of the said judgment, which reads as under :

“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, Tr