Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.—This First Appeal From Order has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh, whereby in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 200 of 2012 - Smt. Asha Devi Soni and others v. Mohd. Mateen and another, learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 5,34,000/- as compensation with simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till the date of realization on account of death of Ram Kumar.

2. The contents of the appeal reveal that on 28.9.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. when the claimant Asha Devi was coming back from Mauaima, Allahabad with her husband Ram Kumar and Monu on motorcycle, the motor car bearing registration No. U.P.44-S-7286 coming from the side of Faizabad on Allahabad-Faizabad road, driven rashly and negligently, collided with motorcycle in which all the persons on motorcycle got injured and serious injuries were caused to Ram Kumar, who was admitted to District Hospital, Pratapgarh, where he died. He was doing business of vegetable in Bombay and was earning Rs. 10,000-12,000/- per month.

3. After considering the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant in the case, the Tribunal framed four issues to the effect as to whether on 28.9.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. the aforesaid car collided with the motorcycle and caused injuries whereby the deceased Ram Kumar died during the treatment and as to whether driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective license and as to whether the vehicle was insured at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal after assessment of the evidence found that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid license and the vehicle was insured at the time of accident. It was further found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and thus the claimants were entitled for payment of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is wholly illegal and erroneous and against the facts and law. The first point as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the multiplier used by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was of 45 years age at the time of accident. While discussing the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, Hon’ble the Apex Court vide order dated 31.10.2017 has applied the multiplier as laid in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. While discussing the above noted case, Hon’ble the Apex Court also discussed the law laid down in the case of Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another, (2009) 13 SCC 422, which is quoted as under:

“.......42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out.

42. The conclusions that have been summed up in Reshma Kumari are as follows:

43.1. In the applications for compensation made Under Section 166 of the 1988 Act in death cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunals shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the Table prepared in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.

43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163-A under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column (6) of the Table in Sarla Ve