JUDGMENT Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 23.2.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dehradun. 2. The claimants Virendra Singh Negi and Sushila Devi preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of compensation on account of the death of their son Pradeep Singh Negi in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants on the fateful day on 1.4.2004, deceased Pradeep Singh, who was employed in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam as Mines Clerk was going towards Doiwala on foot. When he reached near Kunvawala, truck No. UP 07-D 2930, which was going in the same direction hit the deceased Pradeep Singh and crushed him under the wheels, who died instantaneously. According to claimants the deceased was getting Rs. 3,505 per month as salary. At the time of accident he was 23 years of age. 3. Respondent No. 3, owner of the truck has denied the assertions made in the claim petition. She has stated that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver but the deceased was under intoxication and when he came in front of truck, the truck driver turned the truck extremely left and the truck went in the agriculture field. She has stated that truck has not dashed the deceased at all and some other vehicle might have hit him. 4. The insurance company, appellant, has admitted that the truck involved in the accident was insured with it but it has been denied that the accident had taken place due to negligence of truck driver. Further, it has been stated that the amount claimed as compensation is excessive. 5. In order to prove his case, claimants have examined Virendra Singh Negi, PW 1; Jagdev Singh, PW 2 and Nikhil Sharma, PW 3. Claimants also filed copy of F.I.R., last pay certificate of the deceased, High School certificate of the deceased and postmortem report. Opposite parties examined Mangat Ram, DW 1 and Rajendra Singh, DW 2 and filed copy of driving licence. 6. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Rajendra Singh. 7. Opposite parties examined Mangat Ram, DW 1 and Rajendra Singh, DW 2 and filed copy of driving licence. 6. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Rajendra Singh. 7. So far as compensation is concerned the Tribunal has recorded the finding that at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 23 years. The claimants have examined Nikhil Sharma, PW 3, who has stated that the deceased was employed in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam on daily wages and he was getting Rs. 3,500 per month. He has proved the last muster roll of the deceased in which he was paid Rs. 2,308 for 26 days, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs. 2,308 and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount for the own expenses of the deceased, the annual loss of dependency was assessed to Rs. 18,468. Considering the age of the deceased as well as the claimants, multiplier of 17 has been selected by the trial court. Thus, total loss sustained by claimants comes to Rs. 18,468 x 17 = Rs. 3,13,956. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. Beside this Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 for mental pain and agony. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,25,956 as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 8. Mr. K.K. Sah, counsel for appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding rash and negligent driving by the truck driver and also selecting multiplier of 17 while it should be in accordance with the age of claimants. The amount of compensation awarded is excessive. 9. So far as rash and negligent driving is concerned, the claimant examined Jagdev Singh, PW 2. The accident took place in front of the shop of this witness. This witness has stated that deceased Pradeep Singh came to his shop for repairing punctured tyre of his scooter. After leaving his scooter in the shop he was going to search his friend towards Doiwala. A truck came from the side of Dehradun which was being driven rashly and negligently. This witness has stated that deceased Pradeep Singh came to his shop for repairing punctured tyre of his scooter. After leaving his scooter in the shop he was going to search his friend towards Doiwala. A truck came from the side of Dehradun which was being driven rashly and negligently. The truck hit Pradeep Singh, who died at the spot. This witness has also stated that when Pradeep Singh came at his shop, he was not intoxicated. This witness has stated as under: (Omitted as in vernacular) 10. Statement of PW 1 also finds support by the first information report which was lodged in the police station just after the accident. 11. Mr. K.K. Sah, counsel for appellant has also assailed the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground that the multiplier selected by the Claims Tribunal is much higher. The selection of multiplier of' 17' by the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant insurance company on the basis of the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman lyer . The learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in selecting the multiplier of 17 as the Apex Court in the case of Laxman lyer (supra) has held that in those cases where the claimants are parents of the deceased, the multiplier should not be more than 10. Para 12 of the Supreme Court judgment is reproduced below: (12) Keeping in view the observations made by this court in various cases, several other factors need to be taken note of. The deceased was unmarried. The contribution to the parents who had their separate earnings being employed and educated have relevance. The possibility of reduction in contribution once a person gets married is a reality. The compensation is relatable to the loss of contribution or the pecuniary benefits. The multiplier adopted by Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court is certainly on the higher side. Considering the age of claimants, it can never exceed 10 even by the most liberal standards. Worked out on that basis amount comes to Rs. 3,60,000 at the monthly expected income fixed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. The multiplier adopted by Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court is certainly on the higher side. Considering the age of claimants, it can never exceed 10 even by the most liberal standards. Worked out on that basis amount comes to Rs. 3,60,000 at the monthly expected income fixed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. Looking into the nature of the contributory negligence of the deceased after making an appropriate deduction which can reasonably be fixed at 25 per cent, the compensation amount payable by the Corporation can be fixed at Rs. 3,00,000 including the amount awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court for loss of expectation of life. Interest at the rate as awarded by the High Court is maintained from the date of application for compensation. 12. From the above quoted judgment it is apparent that as the father of the deceased, in that case, was employed and had his own earnings, the Supreme Court held that the multiplier of 10 was appropriate in that case. In the present case, the claimants are mother and father of the deceased. The father of the deceased Virendra Singh Negi died on 6.2.2005 during the pendency of the appeal, as per report of the process server based on the certificate of Gaon Pradhan. Now there remained the widowed mother of the deceased. Sushila Devi was 45 years of age at the time of filing claim petition. She was wholly dependent on the income of her deceased son Pradeep Singh. Since the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that at the time of accident the income of the deceased was Rs. 2,308 and the claimants' dependency was assessed to Rs. 18,468 per annum, the compensation to be awarded to claimants, at least, should be such amount, which if deposited in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank can fetch Rs. 18,468 per annum as interest. Amount of compensation Rs. 3,13,956 assessed by Claims Tribunal by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,468 with multiplier of 17, when deposited in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank would fetch, at the prevalent rate of interest of 6 per cent, a sum of Rs. 18,837 per annum, which is almost similar to the dependency of the claimants assessed by the Tribunal. 3,13,956 assessed by Claims Tribunal by multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,468 with multiplier of 17, when deposited in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank would fetch, at the prevalent rate of interest of 6 per cent, a sum of Rs. 18,837 per annum, which is almost similar to the dependency of the claimants assessed by the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any good ground for interference on the question of multiplier selected by the Tribunal. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya , has held that in a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunal/court should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Paras 8, 9 and 10 of that case are reproduced below: (8) But the assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables, e.g., the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together. (9) The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. (10) Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis 'and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master' since there are so often many imponderables. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase. (10) Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis 'and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master' since there are so often many imponderables. In every case 'it is the overall picture that matters' and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered. 14. Thus, seen from any angle, the compensation of Rs. 3,13,956 assessed by the Tribunal after multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 18,468 with the multiplier of 17 appears to be just and proper compensation in the case. The sum of Rs. 10,000 awarded for loss of love and affection and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, also does not call for any interference. Thus total sum of Rs. 3,25,956 awarded as compensation on the death of Pradeep Singh is just and proper. 15. The Claims Tribunal awarded 6 per cent pendente lite and further interest in case the amount of award is not paid within two months from the date of award, does not call for any interference. 16. Thus we find that the amount of compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal by applying appropriate multiplier is neither excessive nor exorbitant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus we find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal. 17. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.