Heard Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited which contracted the indemnity by the insurance policy of the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2605, commander jeep and the said insurance coverage was valid on the date of accident.

2. By means of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the appellants have called the judgment and award dated 15.11.2014 delivered in Title Suit (MAC) 363 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in question. As the appellants were not satisfied with the award, they have filed this appeal for enhancement to make the award just in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

3. The grounds urged in this appeal are: (i) the use of multiplier ‘16’ is entirely in defiance of multiplier suggested by Sarala Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298.

4. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel, the appellants have clearly established in the tribunal that at the time of accident the deceased was ‘30’ years of age and as su