ORDER :

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.12.1994/14.12.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IIIrd Additional District Judge, Etah (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 115 of 1992 (Smt. Ram Beti and another Vs. Suresh Chandra and others) awarding a sum of Rs. 61,160/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimants-appellants filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition before the Tribunal for claiming the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Ram Bilas in a road accident with the averments that on 13.1.1991, Ram Bilas-deceased was going to his village from village Ambari on his bicycle. When he reached at village Kathauli, a scooter no. U.P. 82 2296, which was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. The aforesaid scooter being driven in such a manner dashed deceased’s bicycle. In this accident, deceased sustained very serious injuries and died during the treatment in the hospital on 14.1.1991.

4. Aggrieved mainly with the compensation awarded, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. The accident is not in dispute. The issue of negligence has attained finality as neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has disputed the same even in oral submissions. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident is also a decided fact. The vehicle being insured and there being no breach of policy condition is a finding, which has attained finality. The only issue to be decided is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased will have to be Rs.2,000/-per month to which 40% will have to be added towards future loss of income and 1/2 will have to be deducted for personal expenses. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.5,000/-for medical expenses. It is further stated that the learned Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of non pecuniary damages. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident, hence, the multiplier applicable would be 18. In support of the above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093 & Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. The income which is asked for cannot be granted in absence of any evidence to prove the same. It is also submitted that in the year of accident, the multiplier was that of the parents to be applied.

8. This Court cannot accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that amount is just and proper and the multiplier was that of the parents to be applied. The law on the point is now well settled that multiplier would be that of the deceased.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the income of the deceased can be considered to be Rs.2,000/-per month i.e. Rs.24,000/-per annum. The deceased will fall within the category of self employed and his age was in the age bracket of 25-30 years at the time of accident, hence, 40% of income shall be added towards future loss of income and 1/2 shall be deducted for personal expenses as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [2014 (4) TAC 637 (SC)]. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 wil