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 30-06-2005 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ First Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in MAC. Case No. 149 of 2004 whereby the claim of the claimants was allowed for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,04,004/- and the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay the same. The Insurance Company was also directed to deposit the amount of compensation within thirty days from the date of award and in the event of failure to deposit the amount within thirty days, the Insurance Company shall pay interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition upto the payment. 2. The claimants/respondents had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 10,01,504/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 26-06-2004 when the deceased-Maya Prakash Adhikari was traveling on Scooter No. U.A.-06/7579 as pillion rider, the offending vehicle Tanker No. U.P.04/A-0298 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently while moving in reverse direction, dashed the scooter. The deceased died instantaneously. It was alleged that the deceased was 48 years of age and was working as Head Clerk in Uttaranchal State Road Transport Corporation and posted at Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar at the time of the accident. It was further alleged that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 8,601/- per month. Hence, the claimants had preferred the claim petition. 3. The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle Tanker contested the claim petition. The Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Scooterist. It was further pleaded that the owner and insurer of Scooter were the necessary parties but they had not been impleaded as opposite parties in the claim petition. The owner of the Tanker Amreek Singh in his written statement denied the allegation made in the claim petition due to lack of knowledge. The owner pleaded that as the Tanker was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be that of Insurance Company. The owner of the Tanker Amreek Singh in his written statement denied the allegation made in the claim petition due to lack of knowledge. The owner pleaded that as the Tanker was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be that of Insurance Company. It was further pleaded that the driver of the Tanker was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the scooterist. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal held that the deceased Maya Prakash Adhikari died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 26-06-2004; the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Tanker was liable to pay the compensation to the claim ants. 5. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,03,212/- per annum. By deducting 1/3 for the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants' dependency was assessed at Rs. 68,808/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 68,808/- with the multiplier of '13', the compensation was worked out to Rs. 8,94,504/-. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 9,500/- under other heads and thus, a total sum of Rs. 9,04,004/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Maya Prakash Adhikari in the motor accident. The Insurance Company was also directed to deposit the amount of compensation within thirty days from the date of award and in the event of failure to deposit the amount within thirty days, the Insurance Company shall pay interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition upto the payment. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company / appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appeared for respondent No.5. Perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased-Maya Prakash Adhikari sustained the multiple injuries while the Tanker was stationed on the bridge. It was contended that the Scooterist was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. 1 to 4. None appeared for respondent No.5. Perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the deceased-Maya Prakash Adhikari sustained the multiple injuries while the Tanker was stationed on the bridge. It was contended that the Scooterist was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. The Scooter dashed the Tanker from back side resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased and the deceased succumbed to his injuries. It was further contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker which was moving in reverse direction at Bhakhara Bridge at the time of accident. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the owner and the Insurance Company had not produced the driver of the Tanker as a witness before the learned Tribunal which is against the record. As such, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supported the award of the learned Tribunal. 9. Perusal of the record reveals that the claimants had adduced the evidence of Santosh Ahikari-PW3 who was driving the scooter at the time of accident. This witness has stated that the offending vehicle Tanker without giving any indication started moving in reverse direction on the bridge. He tried to escape himself as well as the deceased, but the deceased was crushed under the rear wheel of the Tanker. He immediately reported the matter to the police and narrated the entire story in his report. The Police had also filed the chargesheet against the driver of the offending Tanker. It is also pertinent to mention here that the driver of the offending Tanker had not lodged any report to the police that the offending Tanker was stationed on the bridge and the Scooterist dashed the stationed Tanker. The driver had admitted this fact in his deposition before the Tribunal. The appellant had examined the driver of the offending Tanker Madan Pal-DW1 who had stated in his evidence that the Scooterist was rash and negligent and he dashed the stationed Tanker on the bridge resulting in the death of the deceased. Perusal of the evidence reveals that the rear wheel of the Tanker crushed the deceased. The appellant had examined the driver of the offending Tanker Madan Pal-DW1 who had stated in his evidence that the Scooterist was rash and negligent and he dashed the stationed Tanker on the bridge resulting in the death of the deceased. Perusal of the evidence reveals that the rear wheel of the Tanker crushed the deceased. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the deceased sustained the crush injuries while the offending vehicle Tanker was stationed. Apart from this, the matter was immediately reported to the Police by the Scooterist. A case was registered against the driver of the offending Tanker and chargesheet was submitted against him by the police. The driver of the offending Tanker had not lodged any report to the police stating therein that he was not responsible for the accident and the Scooterist was rash and negligent who hit the stationed Tanker from the back side. The story, which has been pleaded by the driver of the offending Tanker that the Scooterist was rash and negligent was belated and afterthought. The learned Tribunal, therefore, was fully justified in holding that the deceased was travelling on Scooter as a pillion rider and the offending vehicle Tanker, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, while moving in reverse direction, dashed the Scooter and the deceased sustained the serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side and the claimants are not entitled to get the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the claimants refuted the contention and supported the award of the learned Tribunal. 11. The claimants had filed salary certificate which reveals that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 8,601/- p.m. from the department. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in calculating the compensation on the gross salary which is against the law. Perusal of the salary certificate filed before the Tribunal reveals that there was no such deduction which is to be excluded for the purposes of calculating the compensation. The salary certificate reveals that the amount which has been deducted from the salary is with regard to the G.P.F. and G.I.S. This amount has to be added towards income of the deceased. The salary certificate reveals that the amount which has been deducted from the salary is with regard to the G.P.F. and G.I.S. This amount has to be added towards income of the deceased. Thus the monthly income would be calculated inclusive of G.P.F. and G.I.S. We do not find any fault in computing the income of the deceased. 12. The deceased was aged about 48 years and 7 months at the time of the accident. The claimants are - Mamta Adhikari (widow) aged 47 years, Jagdish Chandra (son) aged 23, Pankaj Kumar (son) aged 20 years and Km. Ritu (daughter) aged about 18 years respectively. Considering the age of the deceased and the claimants, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has erred in selecting higher multiplier of '13'. In our opinion, the appropriate multiplier would be of '10'. 13. Thus, considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,601/- p.m., i.e. Rs. 1,03,212/- per annum and by deducting 1/3 of the said amount for the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependency is assessed at Rs. 68,808/- per annum. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 68,808/- with the multiplier of '10', the compensation works out at Rs. 6,88,080/-. 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 are entitled to get Rs. 7,03,080/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Three Thousand Eighty only) as compensation for the death of Maya Prakash Adhikari. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed to the above extent. The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,03,080/- instead of Rs. 9,04,004/-. The compensation of Rs. 9,04,004/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced to Rs. 7,03,080/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Three Thousand Eighty only). The impugned award dated 30-06-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/First Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in MAC. Case No. 149 of 2004 is modified accordingly. The amount of compensation shall be disbursed in the same manner and proportion as mentioned in the impugned award. 15. No order as to costs.