JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.:-This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, dated 25.7.2005, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 was allowed as against the appellant and the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- as compensation alongwith interest. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 4 as claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of compensation in regard to the death of one Mohinder Singh Chauhan. The claimants being widow, minor daughter, son and mother of the deceased had filed the claim petition being dependents of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased Mohinder Singh had boarded Tata Sumo No. HR-51-0552 at Bus Stand Shimla, for going to Delhi, which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. Mohinder Singh succumbed to the injuries. Respondent No. 1/owner of the vehicle did not contest the petition and was proceeded against ex parte. The driver of the vehicle had died in the accident. Appellant as respondent No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company contested the petition on various grounds that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the petition has been filed in collusion. 3. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the driver was possessing a valid licence and there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and accordingly, the claim petition was allowed as against the appellant. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken two grounds in challenging the findings of learned Tribunal. The first ground taken by them was that the deceased was being carried in the vehicle for hire and reward and as such, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. To substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. To substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi and Ors., FAO No. 572 of 2000, decided on 10.9.2009. In that case, the findings of the Tribunal were set aside and it was observed by the learned Single Judge that in view of the admission made by the claimants in the petition that they had paid fare to the respondent, the learned Tribunal was not right in holding that there was no evidence that the deceased was traveling by the Car on payment of fare and so he was only a gratuitous passenger. It was held that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. However, the Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award and then to claim it from the owner by way of execution. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no evidence led by the Insurance Company to show that the driver had taken the passenger on hire or reward and that it was also with consent of the owner and, therefore, then only the Insurance Company can be said to be absolved of its liability. It was submitted that the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the report of the Surveyor and the witnesses who came in Court had clearly stated that they had made statements to the Surveyor at the instance of the Insurance Company that they will get compensation only if they stated so that they have paid the charges and all the witnesses have resiled from their statements made to the Surveyor in this regard. To substantiate his plea, the learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limitd. Vs. Minor Prayan Babubhai Patel Thro Babubhai Manabhai Patni & Ors., I (1999) ACC 699. The observations made in Para 6 are relevant and are being reproduced below:- 7. Any act which results in violation or breach of the condition of the policy by the driver will not relieve or set free the Insurance Company from its liability where it is not with the consent or knowledge or authority of the insured. The observations made in Para 6 are relevant and are being reproduced below:- 7. Any act which results in violation or breach of the condition of the policy by the driver will not relieve or set free the Insurance Company from its liability where it is not with the consent or knowledge or authority of the insured. The insured has not violated the terms of the policy and if the driver on his own volition did all these things the Insurance Company cannot be set free. 8. The burden of proof was on Insurance Company that the driver has carried the passengers on hire or reward with the knowledge of the insured or the insured had permitted the driver to carry the passenger for hire or reward and Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability by virtue of non-obstative clause contained in the said provision. The fact that the Insurance Company has not proved that the insured has violated the terms of the policy or the driver at his instance, knowledge or authorization has done it, irrespective of the fact of the admission made by the claimants, the Insurance Company has rightly been held to be liable to indemnify the insured for the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants in these two claim applications. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, there are no assertions made by the claimants that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle on the basis of hire or reward or payment of any fare to the driver. This fact distinguishes the present case from the case decided by the learned Single Judge in New India Assurance Company Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi and Ors. (supra). A perusal of the evidence shows that the petitioners had led evidence and they have not taken any plea or substantiated the same that the deceased had paid some fare to the driver. On the other hand, the petitioners have examined one co-occupant of the vehicle PW-5 Sunil, who has stated that they were given lift by the driver and he and Mohinder (now deceased) had not paid any fare to the driver of Tata Sumo. On the other hand, the petitioners have examined one co-occupant of the vehicle PW-5 Sunil, who has stated that they were given lift by the driver and he and Mohinder (now deceased) had not paid any fare to the driver of Tata Sumo. The learned Tribunal had discussed the evidence and had concluded that this fact does not stand established that the owner had consented to the passengers being carried for hire and reward and, therefore, was not liable to pay the amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal had discussed the question in detail referring to a decision of this Court also as well as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and accordingly, it had been held that there was no proof that private vehicle was on hire or reward with consent, knowledge or permission of the owner. Thus, it was held that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy absolving Insurance Company from payment. In the present case, the Insurance Company had examined some of the occupants of the vehicle to prove that they had made statements before the Surveyor and had placed reliance upon the report of the Surveyor Ext. RW-7/B. However, the owner in question had not been examined by the Insurance Company to prove that the vehicle was being driven with his consent. Keeping in view the discussion made by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence, I am not inclined to hold that there is any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 10. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant was that multiplier of 15 applied in the case can be said to be excessive and as such, it called for reduction. In the present case, the age of the deceased proved was 40 years and the multiplier of 15 was applied. The learned Tribunal had referred to two decisions of the Apex Court including General Manager Kerala State Road 11. Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 A.C.J. 1 (S.C.)., wherein the age of deceased was 39 years and multiplier of 12 was applied by the Apex Court. The learned Tribunal had referred to two decisions of the Apex Court including General Manager Kerala State Road 11. Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and others, 1994 A.C.J. 1 (S.C.)., wherein the age of deceased was 39 years and multiplier of 12 was applied by the Apex Court. The learned Tribunal had also observed that in coming to this conclusion he had been guided by the multiplier applied under Schedule-II of Section 163-A of M.V. Act for the age group of 40 to 45 years. The said schedule is relevant and can be considered but is not binding upon the Courts. However, I may also make a reference to the latest decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), wherein after reference to Susamma Thomas case and another case of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Trilok Chandra, 1 (1996) ACC 592 (SC), their Lordships had held in Para-21 of the judgment that the multiplier of 15 for the age of 36 to 40 years can be said to be most appropriate. Thus, it is clear that the multiplier of 15 applied can be said to be most appropriate in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal does not call for an interference by this Court. 12. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.