JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J.- This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) against the judgment and award, dated 15-11-2003, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Addl. District Judge, Dehradun (in short the Tribunal) in M.A.C. Petition No. 319 of 2002, Kanhiya Lal Nauriyal and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. and others whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3.32.000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum against the appellant as mentioned in the impugned award. Aggrieved the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Yogesh Kumar Nauriyal, aged 18 years, a student, lost his life in a motor vehicle accident on 28.11.2002 when he was returning from a marriage party by bus No : U.P.-07 GE-5912 from Badowala to Forest Research Institute. According to the claimants when the said bus was stopped by the driver near LM.A. Gate No.6 to alight the deceased, the driver started the bus rashly and negligently, with the result Yogesh Kumar was crushed under the wheel of the bus and sustained fatal injuries. He was brought to C.M.I. Hospital Dehradun and then he was referred to Doon Hospital, Dehradun, where he succumbed to his injuries on 29-11-2002 at 3.30 a.m. Hence the claim petition was filed by his legal heirs. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its written statement alleging therein that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the deceased that the bus was being driven without valid permit and in Violation of the policy conditions that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. 4. The owner and driver of the bus filed joint written statement and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. They asserted that the bus was duly insured with United India Insurance Company on the date of accident, therefore, the liability to pay compensation lay on the insurer. 5. The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues. Thereafter, the owner and driver of the bus did not appear in the case, therefore, it proceeded ex-parte against them. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the accident resulting into injuries and death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. It further held that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to show that the driver was not having valid driving licence. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the accident resulting into injuries and death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. It further held that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to show that the driver was not having valid driving licence. It further held that the bus was not being driven in violation of policy conditions. Finally, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3.32,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants against the appellant. 6. In support of appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the owner and driver of the bus did not contest the claim petition therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company moved application under Section 170 of the Act to contest the case on all the grounds which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.7.2003. On this background, it was submitted that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus is erroneous; that the bus was being driven against the policy conditions and that the compensation awarded was excessive. 7. So far as the finding on the point of rash and negligent driving of the bus is concerned, there is ocular testimony of P.W. 4, Bhushan. He was a member of the marriage party along with the deceased. He gave categorical statement that the accident resulting into fatal injuries to the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. He was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant but nothing could be brought on record to indicate that he was not giving a true account of the accident or that he was in any way inimical to the owner or driver of the offending bus. The Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant could no1' indicate as to how there was violation of policy conditions. Paper No. 44-C1/1 is the permit of the bus and from its perusal. it is evident that the accident took place on its prescribed route. It is not disputed that the offending bus was carrying a marriage party from Forest Research Institute to Badowala and back. Paper No. 44-C1/1 is the permit of the bus and from its perusal. it is evident that the accident took place on its prescribed route. It is not disputed that the offending bus was carrying a marriage party from Forest Research Institute to Badowala and back. The appellant did not adduce any witness to substantiate its contention to show that the bus was being driven in violation of policy conditions. The only stand taken by the appellant is that there was collusion between the claimants and the owner and driver of the bus but there is no such finding of the Tribunal that the claim petition was preferred in collusion between the claimants and the person against whom it has been made. Having considerd the entire material on record from all the four corners, we are unable to accept that policy conditions were violated by the owner of the bus. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly hammered the income of the deceased. The claimants have produced two witnesses, P.W. 2 Gopal Ram and P.W. 3, Punnu Prasad, to prove the income of the deceased. On scrutinizing the testimony of both these witnesses, it can safely be held that the deceased was having income of Rs. 2.500/- per month from tuition work, thereby annual income of Rs. 30,000/-. After deducting l/3rd from it, the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 20.000/-. The deceased was undisputedly unmarried at the time of occident, therefore, the age of his parents was relevant for determination of compensation. The father was the deceased was 40 years and mother was aged 37 years. therefore, multiplier of 16 was rightly applied by the Tribunal, thereby total loss of dependency was arrived at 20,000/- x 16=Rs. 3,20,000/-. In addition, sums of Rs. 2.000/towards funeral expenses and 10.000/- to words loss of love and affection were awarded. Thus, total compensation of Rs. 3,32.000/- was awarded along with interest @ 9% per annum. This compensation in our opinion, is just and proper. The Tribunal has not committed my illegality or infirmity on this score. Ultimately we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is affirmed. No order as to costs. 11. The Tribunal has not committed my illegality or infirmity on this score. Ultimately we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award is affirmed. No order as to costs. 11. The amount in deposit with this Court be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for being paid to the claimants.