JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Though this appeal has been listed as respondent No. 6 who was driver at the relevant time, was not served. both the learned counsel submitted that the appeal itself can be decided after dispensing the service of respondent No. 6. 3. In view of the above, service of the respondent No. 6 is dispensed with. 4. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard on merit. 5. Since, this appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company alongwith the owner of the vehicle and appellant Insurance Company has not raised any ground which is available under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, appeal of the appellant Company is not maintainable. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed only on this ground. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious illegality in awarding the huge compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/- to the claimants. It is submitted that the Tribunal further committed illegality in applying multiplier of 20 in a case where the deceased was of the age of 30 years. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the deceased was of a very young age and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. The accident occurred on 31.5.1987 and one Chotulal died. The claimants are deceased's wife and other legal heirs. The claimants submitted that Chotulal was engaged in a flourishing business and because of his untimely death, the claimants are deprived from the income of Chotulal. It appears from the record that the appellants have not produced any evidence. The claimants examined one of the claimant Devilal, another claimant Smt. Radha and witness Hajarilal. they proved the income of the appellant. The Tribunal assessed the income of Chotulal as Rs. 45,000/- per annum, and gave deduction of ⅓ as that would have been the amount which deceased would have incurred for himself. The Tribunal after assessing the loss to claimants after deduction as Rs. 30,000/- applied multiplier of 20. the multiplier of 20 on the face of it, is on higher side and in this case, the multiplier could have been 17 only. 9. In view of the above, the total loss of income to the claimants comes to Rs. The Tribunal after assessing the loss to claimants after deduction as Rs. 30,000/- applied multiplier of 20. the multiplier of 20 on the face of it, is on higher side and in this case, the multiplier could have been 17 only. 9. In view of the above, the total loss of income to the claimants comes to Rs. 5,10,000/- in place of six lakhs. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the claimants on account of loss of love and affection of the deceased. The amount awarded by the Tribunal on this count appears to be just and proper. 10. In view of the above, the appear of the appellant No. 2 Babu Lal deserves to be allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal holding that the appellants are liable for Rs. 6,60,000/- in total is reduced to Rs. 5,70,000/- in total on the basis of calculation mentioned above. Rest of the award is kept as it is. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 18% per annum I do not find it as excessive in the facts of this case, therefore, no interference is called for. 12. The appeal of the appellant Insurance Company is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******