JUDGMENT Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal, preferred u/s 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/IIIrd Additional District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C Case No. 13 of 1999 whereby the claim of the claimants was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,95,136/- and the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay the same. 2. The claimants, Smt. Manjinder Kaur widow of the deceased, Rajendra Singh and her three minor children, namely Paramjeet Singh, Harpreet Kaur and Gurpreet Singh had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 18.06.1998 at about 4:30 p.m., while the deceased-Rajendra Singh was going on scooter bearing No. U.P.02B/9357 with Harvinder Singh, an offending truck bearing No. UAB-4018 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed from the back side of the scooter near Rusi Gaon, 4 kms from Nainital, due to which the deceased and the driver of the scooter and the truck fell into the gorge resulting the death of Rajendra Singh and other persons at the spot. It was further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident and his monthly income was Rs. 10,000/- p.m.. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statement. The insurance Company - opposite party No. 1 admitted the accident and pleaded that the truck was being plied in breach of the policy condition and the insurer has not been informed about the alleged accident, as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The opposite party No. 2 (respondent No. 5) had admitted the date, place and time of the accident. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to failure of the brake. It was pleaded that the truck was insured with the National Insurance Company via cover Note No. 69309 which was valid from 19.04.98 to 18.04.1999 and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the claimants. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following three necessary issues. It was pleaded that the truck was insured with the National Insurance Company via cover Note No. 69309 which was valid from 19.04.98 to 18.04.1999 and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, if any, to the claimants. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following three necessary issues. i. Whether on 18.06.1988 at about 4:30 p.m, the truck No. UAB-4018 hit the scooter near Rusi Gaon, Haldwani Nainital Road, Police Station Tallital, Distt. Nainital and both the vehicles fell in the gorge due to which Rajinder Singh, sitting in the scooter sustained the injuries and died at the spot? ii. Whether the deceased Sardar Rajender Singh was gratuitous passenger in Truck No. UAB-4018 alongwith 43 pilgrims? iii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, if yes, from whom and how? 5. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the issue No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and held that the accident occurred due to dashing of the truck from the back side of the scooter. On issue No. 3 the Tribunal held as the offending truck was insured with the Insurance Company, so the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,95,136/- as compensation against the appellant – Insurance Company. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance Company/appellant has filed this appeal. 7. Heard Shri Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Zafar Ullah Siddiquie, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record. 8. The respondent/claimants had filed Cross Objection No. 1913 of 2001 in the appeal in question and prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be enhanced from Rs. 4,95,136/- to Rs. 15,00,000/-. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 63,278 per annum; in selecting the higher multiplier of 12; and in awarding the excessive compensation of Rs. 4,95,136/-. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal had erred in not taking into account the income of the deceased. It was contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 63,278 per annum; in selecting the higher multiplier of 12; and in awarding the excessive compensation of Rs. 4,95,136/-. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal had erred in not taking into account the income of the deceased. It was contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and the learned Tribunal had fell in error in selecting the lower multiplier of 12 whereas the claimants were entitled for higher multiplier for the age group of 40 years. 11. The learned Tribunal had held that the driver of the offending truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was further held that the deceased-Rajender Singh was going on scooter and the offending truck hit the said scooter from the back side due to the said accident, the truck and the scooter alongwith its passengers had fallen in the gorge resulting the death of the deceased Rajender Singh. 12. The claimants had adduced the evidence of Manjit Singh-PW2 who had stated in his evidence that on 18.06.98, the offending truck reached near village Rusi which hit the scooter in which the deceased-Rajender Singh was sitting resulting death of several persons including the deceased Rajender Singh. Manjeet Singh-PW2 had further stated in his deposition that he was present at the time of the accident. The evidence of Manjeet Singh-PW2 is credible and cogent. He was cross examined at length but nothing could be elicited from cross examination. The appellant/opposite party had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal. Thus the evidence of Manjeet Singh-PW2 is credible and cogent. The manner in which the offending truck dashed the scooter and had fallen into the gorge does not leave any doubt about the negligence of the driver of the offending truck which led to the accident resulting the death of the several persons including the deceased-Rajender Singh. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, the Tribunal had rightly held that the Insurance Company of the offending truck was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 13. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, the Tribunal had rightly held that the Insurance Company of the offending truck was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the deceased-Rajender Singh was not travelling in the scooter but he was the passenger of the offending truck and he was the gratuitous passenger of the offending truck, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant did not adduced any evidence in support of his contention. The claimants had adduced the evidence of Manjeet Singh-PW2 who had categorically stated in his deposition that Rajender Singh and Harvinder Singh were travelling on the scooter and the offending truck hit the scooter from the back side and both the vehicles, i.e., scooter and truck had fallen in the gorge resulting death of several persons including Rajender Singh. This evidence is unrebutted and no oral evidence has been adduced in rebuttal. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the report of the police. The report of the police had not been proved in accordance with the provisions of the law. Perusal of the report also reveals that the said report is the result of the inquiry of police Sub Inspector. Even if it is admitted in evidence, it cannot be held to be a direct evidence of the fact. It may be worst piece of hearsay evidence which is not admissible in evidence. Thus we do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. In motor accident claim petitions, the just and proper compensation should be awarded by the Tribunal. The just and proper compensation depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S.Rajapriya reported in J.T. 2005 (4) SC 531 has held that:- “8. 14. In motor accident claim petitions, the just and proper compensation should be awarded by the Tribunal. The just and proper compensation depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S.Rajapriya reported in J.T. 2005 (4) SC 531 has held that:- “8. 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. 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.” 15. In the case of S. Rajapriya (Supra) as the deceased was 38 years of age, the multiplier of 16 was applied by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while assessing the just and reasonable compensation has held that the Tribunal had adopted higher multiplier of ‘16’ at the age of 38 years. In the case of S. Rajapriya (Supra) as the deceased was 38 years of age, the multiplier of 16 was applied by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while assessing the just and reasonable compensation has held that the Tribunal had adopted higher multiplier of ‘16’ at the age of 38 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. It has been held that the appropriate multiplier would be ‘12’ and not ‘16’. In the case in hand, considering the dependency and age of the deceased the learned Tribunal was justified in applying the multiplier of ‘12’ and not ‘15’. 16. Though the claimants had pleaded that the deceased Rajender Singh used to earn Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The evidence led before the Tribunal in the form of the assessment made by the Income Tax Department had establish the income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 63,278/-(in round figure 63,300/-) after deducting the income tax. Considering the number of persons depending on the income of the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimant dependency was assessed at Rs. 42,200/- per annum. 17. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the selection of multiplier of 12 by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal had fallen into error in calculating the compensation at Rs. 4,95,136/-. The compensation is assessed at Rs. 5,06,400/-. The claimants are further entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to the widow and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of estate. Thus the claimants become entitled to receive a total sum of Rs. 5,21,400/- (Rs. Five lakhs twenty one thousand and four hundred only) as compensation for the death of Rajender Singh in the motor accident. 18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company Limited/appellant is liable to be dismissed. The cross objection filed by the claimants/ respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to be partly allowed. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant –Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company Limited/appellant is liable to be dismissed. The cross objection filed by the claimants/ respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to be partly allowed. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant –Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is hereby dismissed. The cross objection filed by the claimants for the enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 4,95,136/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 5,21,400/-. The National Insurance Company Ltd.- the appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 26,264/- as compensation before the Tribunal concerned within the period of two months from today. The claimants shall be entitled @ 7% of interest on the enhanced amount of Rs. 26,264/- from the date of the claim petition to the dates of deposit of the amount. The enhanced amount of the compensation shall be disbursed to the claimants in the same manner and proportion as directed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 20. No order as to costs.