JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Khan, learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company and Mr. H. Nongkhlaw assisted by Mr. S. M. Wahlang, learned Counsels, for the Respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment & Order dated 17.08.2007. passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nongpoh, in MAC Case No. 02/2006 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,39,600/- as compensation to the claimant on account of death of his nephew in a motor vehicle accident. The case, in brief, leading to filing of this Appeal are that, on 29.01.2004, at about 6 p.m., a motor vehicle accident took-place near Army Pump House, at Mawiong under Police Station Umiam (Barapani) in Ri-bhoi district of Meghalaya, involving the Bazar Bus bearing Registration No. ML-05-D-1962 belonging to Respondent No. 2 Sri Ferdinand Jywra, insured with the Appellant Insurance Company and in the said accident, one Karminus Marwein, who was travelling in the said Bus died on his way to Civil Hospital, Shillong. He was aged about 19 years and a student of Class-VIII, who according to the claim petition, was contributing Rs. 300/- per month to the claimant. An accident case being No. 5(1)2004 was registered under Sections 279/337/338/427/304A of Indian Penal Code in the Umiam Police Station in this respect. The Respondent No. 1 being the Uncle of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for granting Rs. 10,30,000/-, before the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nongpoh, which was registered as MAC Case No. 02/2006. The Appellant Insurance Company filed written statement refuting almost all the charges and denying liability for compensation. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, owner and driver of the said motor vehicle, neither appeared nor contested the claim. The Appellant Insurance Company, therefore, filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, praying before the learned Tribunal to allow it to contest the case on all counts. The learned Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues and examined 4 witnesses adduced by the claimant Respondent and after taking into the evidence and materials on record and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation aforesaid vide impugned judgment & Order dated 17.08.2007. 3. At the time of hearing, Mr. The learned Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues and examined 4 witnesses adduced by the claimant Respondent and after taking into the evidence and materials on record and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation aforesaid vide impugned judgment & Order dated 17.08.2007. 3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Insurance Company, submits that although several grounds were taken-up in the appeal, he would like to assail the award on quantum calculated on the basis of application of wrong multiplier and breach of policy of the contract of Insurance. 4. As regards the quantum of compensation, Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the quantum of compensation both under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. According to him, under the pecuniary head, the deceased, as per the claim petition, was a student but the claimant on examination deposed that the deceased was a labour-cum-student and was earning Rs. 80/- per day whenever he used to work during free time. The learned Tribunal allowed the Respondent claimant to lead evidence beyond the pleadings in the claim petition, which is not permissible under the law. In this regard, the learned Counsel, cites the case of Brijmohan v. Sunil Kr. Gupta and Ors., decided by the Delhi High Court and reported in 2008 SCJ 142 in which it is held that evidence led beyond the pleadings cannot be looked into. Moreover, while calculating the quantum, the learned Tribunal took into account the age of the claimant Respondent No. 1 as 44 years and considering his life expectancy as 70 years, applied the multiplier of 36 by deducting the age of the claimant (70 - 44) -- 36 contrary to the provision made in the second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. According to Mr. Khan, learned Counsel, it is the settled position of law that the maximum multiplier cannot exceed 18 considering the age of the claimant as 44 years as provided in the Second Schedule of the said Act. 5. The further submission of Mr. According to Mr. Khan, learned Counsel, it is the settled position of law that the maximum multiplier cannot exceed 18 considering the age of the claimant as 44 years as provided in the Second Schedule of the said Act. 5. The further submission of Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company is that the deceased died unmarried and as such, the multiplier of 15 should have been applied on the basis of age of the claimant who under normal circumstances, would pre-decease the deceased nephew and he would have contributed to number of years till the claimant would live which is provided under Second Schedule. Taking into account the income of the deceased as Rs. 300/- per month and applying the multiplier 15, the admissible claim amount would come to Rs. 54,000/- from which l/3rd is to be deducted as per the Second Schedule. The 1/3rd of Rs. 54,000/- come to Rs. 18,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation would come to (Rs. 54,000/- -- Rs. 18,000/-) = 36,000/- only under the pecuniary head. On the non-pecuniary head, it is submitted that as per the Second Schedule, the maximum expenses for funeral that could be granted is only Rs. 2,000/-. The learned Tribunal without any basis and support from the aforesaid Schedule, fixed the amount for funeral expenses at Rs. 30,000/- which is not sustainable. On account of 'mental shock and Ors.', the learned Tribunal fixed an amount of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation which is also baseless and unacceptable. The reasonable amount on account of 'mental shock and Ors.', according to the learned Counsel, would be Rs. 10,000/- only. Therefore, taking into account, both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, the permissible compensation would be (Rs. 36,000 + Rs, 2,000 + Rs. 10,000) = Rs. 48,000/-only. 6. The further submission of the Appellant Insurance Company is that the claimant and his driver failed to tender evidence on the validity and genuineness of the driving license and have failed to prove that they have not violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question. The owner of the said motor vehicle was the best person, in case the Driver failed to turn-up to adduce evidence, to prove as to whether his employee, the Driver (Respondent No. 3) was holding valid licence. The owner of the said motor vehicle was the best person, in case the Driver failed to turn-up to adduce evidence, to prove as to whether his employee, the Driver (Respondent No. 3) was holding valid licence. Unless the claimant proves the said fact, no liability can be fixed with the Appellant Insurance Company for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. 1988. 7. On the contrary, Mr. Nongkhlaw, learned Counsel for the Respondents, supporting the impugned judgment & Order dated 17.08.2007 submits that learned Tribunal applied correct approach in determining and awarding the compensation in question. Even assuming that the victim had no income of his own, the provision under the law allows calculation of such income at Rs. 300/- per month. Such income of Rs. 300/- is to be multiplied by 12 and by the difference of age between the deceased and the claimant, which in the present case, is (44 --19)--25 years only. The total compensation on the pecuniary head would, therefore, come to (Rs. 300 x 12 x 25) = Rs. 90,000/- only. Such calculation is permissible as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Corporation and Ors. (Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 . The learned Tribunal, following the aforesaid principle has calculated the compensation under pecuniary head which is not required to be interfered with. Under the non-pecuniary head, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- for funeral expenses which is calculated on the basis of present price rise and is. therefore, not at all baseless. The amount of Rs. 80,000/- which is awarded for 'mental shock and others', is also reasonable considering the age of the deceased and the expectation of future income to be contributed to the claimant's family and as such, the learned Tribunal committed no illegality in awarding the aforesaid amount. 8. I have perused the records of the Tribunal and also carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The Appellant did not dispute the age of the victim and although dispute has been made in regard to the evidence led by the claimant to the effect that the victim was a student and used to earn Rs. 80/- per day whenever he worked during his free time. The Appellant did not dispute the age of the victim and although dispute has been made in regard to the evidence led by the claimant to the effect that the victim was a student and used to earn Rs. 80/- per day whenever he worked during his free time. It is not material whether the victim actually used to earn any income or not or whether pleading was made on the earning of the victim inasmuch as it is the settled position by now, that even in case of non-earning victim, the Tribunal may calculate the earning of such victim at Rs. 300/- per month at the minimum. The plea taken by the Appellant Insurance Company deserves no consideration so as to interfere with the calculations made by the learned Tribunal on the minimum income of the victim. 9. The most crucial point is with regard to the calculation made by the learned Tribunal under the pecuniary head. Accepting the age of the claimant as 44 years and taking into consideration his life expectancy upto Rs. 70 years, the learned Tribunal applied multiplier 36(70 -- 44). The future income was calculated by taking Rs. 300/- as contribution/income of the deceased and while multiplying the annual income of Rs. 3600/- by 36 years (Rs. 300 x 12 x 36), it amounted to Rs. 1,29,600/- but the learned Tribunal committed error, while subtracting (70 --44) - 36 and applying the multiplier 36, which should have been (70 -- 44) = 26 only and the total amount should have been (Rs. 3600 x 26) = Rs. 93,600/- only. This was an arithmetical error and the total compensation to be awarded under pecuniary head should be corrected as Rs. 93,600/- only instead of Rs. 1,29,600/-. 10. Now, coming to the compensation under non-pecuniary head, the submission of the Appellant that under Second Schedule, funeral expenses at the maximum, should be fixed at Rs. 2000/- only is not at all acceptable. This amount of Rs. 2000/-, in my considered view, is not the maximum amount but j ust a minimum amount which can be raised from time to time considering the escalating price rise. 11. There are instances of payment of higher amount on account of funeral expenses. In the case of M.N. Rajan and Ors. (Vs. Konnali Khalid Haji and Anr. reported in 2004(3) TAC 17(Kant), the High Court of Karnataka allowed Rs. 11. There are instances of payment of higher amount on account of funeral expenses. In the case of M.N. Rajan and Ors. (Vs. Konnali Khalid Haji and Anr. reported in 2004(3) TAC 17(Kant), the High Court of Karnataka allowed Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal, has, therefore, discretion to award more than Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses in his discretion. That was a case decided in the year 2003 and by now, the prices of commodities have soared considerably and taking into account all these aspects, the claimant may be granted Rs. 10,000/- in the present case under the head 'funeral expenses'. The funeral expenses of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and in the higher side and it must be reduced to Rs. 10,000/- only. As regards the claim of Rs. 2 Lakhs on account of 'mental shock and others', the learned Tribunal granted Rs. 80,000/-. No amount has also been fixed in the second schedule to the compensation to be paid under this head. In my considered view, the Tribunal is to exercise discretion and award reasonable amount under this head. However, the learned Tribunal, did not record any reason as to how it fixed the amount of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for 'mental shock and others'. As per the evidence of the claimant, the deceased neither had parents nor had any brother or sister and the claimant is the next of the kin, he being the maternal uncle. The claimant, no doubt, suffered some amount of mental shock but not of such intensity, the parents of the victim would have suffered and as such, the amount of Rs. 80,000/- for 'mental shock and others', awarded by the learned Tribunal is also found to be unreasonable and at the higher side. However, the present claimant/Respondent No. 1 being the maternal Uncle, certainly did receive some mental shock and he is entitled to some compensation which can reasonably be fixed at Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 80,000/- is also required to be reduced to Rs. 30,000/- under the head 'mental shock and Ors.'. 12. The present case is almost identical to Trilok Chandra's case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the victim was aged about 26 years and the claimant was 60 years. The earning capacity of the victim was estimated at Rs. 300/- per month from which he spent Rs. 30,000/- under the head 'mental shock and Ors.'. 12. The present case is almost identical to Trilok Chandra's case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the victim was aged about 26 years and the claimant was 60 years. The earning capacity of the victim was estimated at Rs. 300/- per month from which he spent Rs. 200/- per month on his family members. Fixing the life expectancy at 60 years, the learned Tribunal deducted 34 years and held that the family was deprived of his earning for 34 years and the compensation was thus worked-out at Rs. 81,600/- (Rs. 200 x 12 x 34). In the said case, the multiplier provided under Second Schedule was not applied, yet the Apex Court did not interfere with the figure of compensation. The reasons so recorded in paragraph-18 of its judgment, is quoted below: 18. We must at once point out that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule suffer from several defects. For example, in Item 1 for a victim aged 15 years, the multiplier is shown to be 15 years and the multiplicand is shown to be Rs. 3000/-. The total amount should be 3000 x 15 = 45,000/- but the same is worked out at Rs. 60,000/-. Similarly, in the second item, the multiplier is 16 and the annual income is Rs. 9000/-; the total, should have been Rs. 1,44,000/- but is shown to be Rs. 1,71,000/-. To put it briefly, the table abounds in such mistakes. Neither the tribunals nor the courts can to by the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide. Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependant on the age of the deceased. For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of 45 and his dependants are his parents, age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. But these mistakes are limited to actual calculations only and not in respect of other items. What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as Courts and Tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case were the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised to 34. thereby showing the lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system. 13. The calculation made by the learned Tribunal under pecuniary head as reflected in the impugned judgment & order dated 17.08.2007 is found to be based on the principles laid down in Trilok Chandra's case (supra) and as such, I find no ground to interfere with the principles followed by the learned Tribunal except with the wrong calculation in the total which should be Rs. 90,000/- only under the pecuniary head. Thus, the total compensation amount, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary is calculated at Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rs. 90,000 + 10,000 + 30,000) only. In my considered opinion, this amount is a just compensation and the Appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. 14. There are also cases, if I refer, particularly to Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 , in which the Apex Court held that compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs for the death of a child upto the age of 15 years is appropriate though the learned Tribunal did not give the details of the calculations made in the judgment. It means that a flat amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs may also be awarded as compensation in certain cases. Following the aforesaid case, this Court, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Lalbiaktluanga and Anr., reported in 2007 (2) GLT 413 upheld the flat compensation amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs for the death of a boy of aged 9 years and held that even though there may be two different views, one of them being that the award is marginally on the higher side, the same is not enough to warrant interference with the award which is not otherwise unjust. It may not be proper to award a flat compensation of an amount of Rs. It may not be proper to award a flat compensation of an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs in the present case but the aforesaid cases have been referred to only to justify that the amount of Rs. 48,000/- only as compensation is not just and reasonable. 15. In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 2,39,600/- as awarded by the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nongpoh, vide impugned judgment & Order dated 17.08.2007, to Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand) only, making the Appellant liable to pay the same to the Respondent/claimant No. 1. 16. LCRs be sent down forthwith.