JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Rahul Sahai ably assisted by Sri Parihar, learned counsel for respondent-Sri Ram General Insurance Company; and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for National Insurance Company. Delay in filing this appeal has been condoned vide order of the date passed in delay condonation application.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court no.03, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.449 of 2009 awarding a sum of Rs.3,75,761/- only with interest at rate of 6% conditionally.

3. By consent of learned counsel for parties, we propose to admit the appeal and hear and decide the lis finally as there appears prima facie error apparent on the face of the record. It is an appeal of the year 2012. The accident had taken place in the year 2009. It is apparent from award that no future loss of income has been awarded by the tribunal. The multiplier applied is also not in consonance with the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Tribunal has awarded multiplier of 13 as per the age of the parents though the deceased was a married person. All this would permit us to take up the matter for final disposal so that the insurance company may not be burdened with huge amount by way of interest.

4. The record is not necessary as the Insurance Company have accepted their liability. The factum of accident having taken place is not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by tribunal has also attained finality. The death was due to accidental injuries is also not disputed. The insurance company has not filed any appeal challenging the award. No orders adverse to owners or drivers are passed.

5. The only dispute raised relates to compensation which has been awarded the latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2021) 1 SCC 171, in case titled Anita Sharma and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another and the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Munni Devi And 5 Ors. v. Heera Lal And 2 Ors., FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 2974 of 2017 decided on 23.2.2021 will also have to be followed while deciding compensation.

6. The appellants have contended that the deceased was a Sales Executive in Colortech Polymer Company and was earning Rs.6,150/- with 12% P.F. and was also entitled to bonus. It is submitted by Shri Shukla that this amount has been disbelieved by the Tribunal, as no documentary evidence to prove the same was produced and oral testimony of PW-1 (father) and PW-3 (employer) has been disbelieved by the tribunal.

7. Learned counsel Shri Sahai assisted by Shri Parihar for the respondent-Insurance Company has contended that no evidence whatsoever was produced to prove that the deceased was in employment, namely, appointment letter, pay slip, and/or register in which name of the deceased might have been mentioned and, therefore, the tribunal has rightly not considered that the deceased was a salaried person and has considered his income as per the judgment of Laxmi Devi and others v. Md. Tanwar and others, 2008 (2) TAC 394 SC and has considered the income to be Rs.100/-per day as a labourer and, therefore, his income has rightly been considered to be Rs.2500/-per month. It is stated by Sri Sahai that the widow has already remarried and, therefore, there is no question of any award being passed in her favour. It is further submitted that the fact that she had re-married and, therefore, the deductions should have been ½ for personal expenses. It is also submitted by Shri Parihar that as it is not proved that he was in what kind of employment and whether he was in fact employee or/not, the award of future income loss was not granted as the law was sattled in decision of Sarla Verma (Supra).

8. It is submitted by Shri Shukla that as far as the multiplier is