Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. The appellants have filed this miscellaneous appeal against the order, dated 23rd February, 1993, passed by 5th Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalanda at Bihar- sharif, in Claim Case No. 11 of 1990 whereby the learned Additional District Judge had ordered to pay the Oriental Insurance Company and the owner of the truck Rs. 78,650/- to applicant no. 2, Siya Devi, the mother of the deceased, besides Rs. 25,000/- already paid to the applicants. The Claims Tribunal had calculated the total amount payable to applicant Siya Devi, as Rs. 01,03,650/-. 2. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 09,10,800/- on account of death of Jai Prakash Narayan in the accident. 3. The deceased, Jai Prakash Narayan, aged 24 years 5 months, on the date of accident, was the son of applicants no.1 and 2 Chandeshwari Prasad and Siya Devi. The deceased was a graduate in science and earning Rs. 1 ,100/- per month by tuition. The deceased, Jai Prakash Narayan was killed in a motor accident and Asthawan P.S. Case No. 198 of 1990 under Sections 337, 338, 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was registered and chargesheet under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was submitted in the case. The truck, bearing registration no. BR01H-9115, had caused the accident as a result of which deceased Jai Prakash Narayan had died. The truck was owned by one Ashok Kumar of Bihta, district Patna and the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company. The claim case was fied by the father, mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased and the claimants had claimed a sum of Rs. 09 10,800/- as compensation for the death caused in the accident. 4. According to the appellant, the Claims Tribunal had not properly considered the oral and documentary evidence and fixed the earning of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month and allowed only Rs. 01,38,200/- as compensation award and deducted 25 per cent of it, i.e., Rs. 34,550/-, on account of lump sum payment. Thus, the amount payable to the applicant no. 2, Siya Devi, was Rs. 01 03 650/- only. 5. A cross objection has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the refund of the excess amount with intererst from the date of payment. 34,550/-, on account of lump sum payment. Thus, the amount payable to the applicant no. 2, Siya Devi, was Rs. 01 03 650/- only. 5. A cross objection has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the refund of the excess amount with intererst from the date of payment. According to the Insurance Company the deceased was an unemployed person and had no definite source of income and it was not given opportunity to participate in the trial of the case and there was no legal and proper service of the notice. 6. It appears from the record that the Insurance Company had appeared before the Claims Tribunal and filed petition. This clearly shows that the Insurance Company had knowledge about the case which had been filed before the Claims Tribunal. 7. It was argued by this learned lawyer for the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, that the address of the Insurance Company has been mentioned in the petition for claim as the Oriental Insurance Company, Exhibition Road, Patna, but the address of head office should have been given. The fact that the Oriental Insurance Company has office at Exhibition Road, Patna, was not denied by the learned lawyer for the Insurance Company in course of argument. Admittedly, the Insurance Company had appeared before the Claims Tribunal and filed petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company had no knowledge regarding the claim of the applicants. The above argument of the learned lawyer of the Insurance Company is of no help to it. 8. In the case nine witnesses had been examined before the Claims -Tribunal on behalf of the applicants. P.W.1 Arvind Kumar, P.W.2, Vijay Pandey, and P.W.3, Triveny Sao, had stated that Jai Prakash Narayan had died in truck accident on 16.06.1990 and he was aged twentyfour and half years and he was giving tuition to 10 to 12 students and charging Rs. 100/- from each student. P.W.4, Madan Mohan Prasad has also made almost similar statement. Exhibit 1 is certificate of Bihar School Examination Board in the name of Jai Prakash Narayan which shows his date of birth as 03rd January, 1966. So, according to the certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board, the deceased was about twentyfour and half years of age at the time of his death in the accident. Exhibit 1 is certificate of Bihar School Examination Board in the name of Jai Prakash Narayan which shows his date of birth as 03rd January, 1966. So, according to the certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board, the deceased was about twentyfour and half years of age at the time of his death in the accident. Exhibit 1/A is provisional certificate which shows that he had passed the Bachelor of Science Examination held in 1984. Exhibit 4 is the copy of the first information report instituted by Pramod Kumar in respect of the accident which shows the number of truck as BR-01H 9115. Exhibit 3 is the copy of the chargesheet which shows that chargesheet had been submitted in the case under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Exhibit 5 is the copy of the post mortem report of deceased, Jai Prakash Narayan. 9. P.W.4, Madan Mohan Prasad, has stated that Jai Prakash Narayan had applied for the post of Food Inspector and he was selected because the number of applicants were same as that of the vacancy and for that post the basic salary was Rs. 1650A per month beside other allowances. There is nothing on the record to show that the deceased, Jai Prakash Narayan, had been appointed as Food Inspector. So it cannot be accepted from the evidence of P.W.4, Madan Mohan Prasad that the deceased, Jai Prakash Narayan, had been appointed to the Post of Food Inspector on a salary of Rs. 1650/- per month besides allowances, A person cannot be presumed to be selected because the number of applicants are same as that of the number of vacancy. 10. P.W.5, Bishundeo Prasad, and P.W.6, Pramod Kumar, are the eye witnesses to the accident. P.W.5, Bishundeo Prasad, has stated that on 16.06.1990 when he was at his beetel shop one person had died in motor accident and he had seen the accident and the registration number of the truck was BR-01H-9115 and the deceased "was Jai Prakash Narayan. P.W.6, Pramod Kumar, has stated that Jai Prakash Narayan had died in truck accident and the number of truck was BR-01H- 9115 and he had seen that accident, which had taken place on 16.06.1990 at about 02.30 P.M. According to him, he had taken Jai Prakash Narayan to Asthawan Government Hospital. P.W.6, Pramod Kumar, has stated that Jai Prakash Narayan had died in truck accident and the number of truck was BR-01H- 9115 and he had seen that accident, which had taken place on 16.06.1990 at about 02.30 P.M. According to him, he had taken Jai Prakash Narayan to Asthawan Government Hospital. He has also said that he had given information about the accident at the police station and the Jamadar had recorded his statement and after going through it he had put his signature on it. Exhibit 2 is copy of his fardebeyan. Ac cording to the fardebeyan (Exhibit 2) the driver of the truck was driving it rashly and negligently and hit Jai Prakash Narayan, as a result of which he had been badly and severely injured and become unconscious and the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. BR-01H-9115 by its driver. PW.7, Chan deshwari Prasad, is the father of the deceased and one of the applicants. According to him, his son had died on 16.06.1990 in the truck accident caused by truck no. BR-01H-9115 for which Asthawan P.S. Case No. 198 of 1990 had been instituted and chargesheet was submitted in it under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. He has stated that at the time of accident the age of Jai Prakash Narayan was twenty four years and five months and at that time Jai Prakash Narayan was earning Rs. 1100/- to Rs. 1200/- per month by giving tuition to 10 to 12 students. P.W.8, Hari Ram, is a witness of formal nature, who has stated that Dr. Shambhu Sharan had conducted the post mortem of the dead body and he had helped the doctor in conducting the post mortem. He has proved Exhibit 5, copy of the post mortem report. P.W.9 is Md. Quasim, the Officer- in-charge of the Police Station. Accordihg to him, he had instituted Sare P.S. Case No. 198 of 1990 in respect of the accident of Jai Prakash Narayan on the statement of Pramod Kumar and he had submitted chargesheet in this case. Further, according to him, post mortem examination was done at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. He has stated that he had submitted the chargesheet under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Further, according to him, post mortem examination was done at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. He has stated that he had submitted the chargesheet under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. He has also stated that he had found, durirn investigation that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was argued by the learned lawyer for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal has not given any reason to decide about the monthly income of the deceased on any reasonable ground for coming to the conclusion in giving the award. 11. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants show that the deceased, Jai Prakash Narayan, was aged about twentyfour and half years at the time of his death in the accident which was caused by truck bearing registration no. BR-01H-9115, and it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The deceased, Jai Prakash Narayan, was a graduate in science and he was giving tuition to 10 to 12 students and charging Rs. 100/- from each student. Admittedly, the deceased was young man and a graduate in science. At the time of the accident the deceased was earning Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1,200/- per month by tuition. If the deceased was giving tuition to ten students on the average throughout the year at the rate of Rs. 100/- each student per month, his income comes to Rs. 1000/- per month and in this way his yearly income comes to Rs. 12,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the mother of the deceased. 12. It was submitted by the learned lawyer for the Insurance Company that for computation of death compensation the proper method is multiplier method. It was also submitted by him that the claimants parents and sister can get 1/3rd amount of the earnings of the deceased which he would have raised as he would have spent 2/3rd of it on himself and his family. In support of his contention the learned lawyer of the Insurance Company placed his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 A.C.J., 1400. 13. The age of the deceased at the time of fatal accident was twentyfour and half years. In such age group adopting a multiplier of 17 the total amount comes to Rs. 02,04,000/-. In support of his contention the learned lawyer of the Insurance Company placed his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 A.C.J., 1400. 13. The age of the deceased at the time of fatal accident was twentyfour and half years. In such age group adopting a multiplier of 17 the total amount comes to Rs. 02,04,000/-. The deceased would have spent 2/3rd of his earnings on himself and his own family which he would have raised and the claimants who are the parents and unmarried sister dependant on him would have got 1/3rd amount. Therefore, the compensation amount including the amount already paid to the claimant, which is payable to the claimant Siya Devi, comes to Rs. 68,000/-. Accordingly, the Insurance Company and the owner of the truck will pay the balance amount to the claimant Siya Devi, mother of the deceased, within three months from the date of this order. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed. The cross objection filed by the Oriental Insurance Company is partfy allowed as mentioned above. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.