JUDGMENT :

1. The Insurance Company has come up in Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 07.08.2019 passed in Claim Petition No. 81 of 2018 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. VI, District Barabanki solely assailing the quantum.

2. Sri Anchal Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that upon the death of Smt. Sunita on 01.11.2016, a Claim Petition bearing No. 81 of 2016 came to be filed. The averments of the claim petition indicated that Smt. Sunita being the pillion rider was traveling along with her husband Anil Kumar on his motorcycle bearing No. UP 32HF 8507. While the said couple had reached near Makarpur Petrol Pump, P.S. Loni Katra, District Barabanki, the offending truck bearing No. UP 83 H 9611 being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle, as a result, Smt. Sunita received grievous injuries and she died on the spot.

3. It was further pleaded that Smt. Sunita was a proficient housewife and was also running a Tea Stall and was able to earn Rs. 6,000/-per month from the said Tea Stall and she contributed towards the household work and that was valued at Rs. 3,000/-per month and consequently the loss was indicated as Rs. 9,000/-per month. The deceased was survived by her husband Anil Kumar, son Pramod Kumar and a daughter Ms. Priya.

4. The claim petition came to be contested and upon exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed six issues. After considering the evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident which caused the death of Smt. Sunita was on account of rash and negligent driving of a truck bearing No. UP 83 H 9611. It also held that the truck was duly insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and its driver had a valid and subsisting driving license, however, while computing the compensation, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs. 3,000/-per month upon which 25% was added for future prospects and considering that the age of the deceased as 40 years, a multiplier of 15 was adopted and thereafter a sum of Rs. 70,000/-towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses was added and thus a total sum of Rs. 7,45,000/-has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents along with 7% interest by means of the award dated 07.08.2019 which is under challenge.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has erred on two counts:-

(i) No deductions towards personal expenses has been made which is apparent from the manner in which the issue no. (vi) has been decided.

(ii) The Tribunal has also erred in adopting an incorrect multiplier of 15 rather a multiplier of 14 ought to have been adopted.

6. It is further elaborated that since no proof was furnished for proving any income of the deceased, hence, even the notional income which has been taken is on the higher side and consequently the award is inflated and necessarily needs to be modified.

7. Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the primary requirement in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty on the Tribunal to ascertain a just and fair compensation.

8. It is urged that specific evidence was led on behalf of the claimants to indicate that the deceased was running a Tea Stall from where she earned Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is further pointed out that she was also a proficient housewife who contributed to the household and this was specifically pleaded in the claim petition including in the evidence and despite the same, the Tribunal has merely taken a notional income of Rs. 3,000/-per month without any basis and has completely ignored the fact that the deceased was running a Tea Stall and the income generated therefrom.

9. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased has been taken to be 40 years which was specifica