JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Didwana ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,87,440/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application. 2. The facts in brief are that on 28th September, 2010 at about 1:15 p.m. one Teja Ram was driving Bus No. RJ-21-PA-0706 from Deedwana to Delhi, when the bus reached near Marudhar Hotel, the way was obstructed by Tractor No. RJ-21-4R-0362, when Teja Ram got down from the bus and requested the driver of the tractor to take the tractor on one side of the road, when the tractor hit him, which resulted in his sustaining severe injuries and on way to hospital, he succumbed to the said injuries. 3. The claimants four in number i.e. father, wife and two children filed application for compensation seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,53,284/-. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 35 years and was serving as driver with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation') on monthly salary of Rs. 12,430/-. 4. The owner and driver of the tractor filed joint reply to the application and disputed the averments made therein. However, it was submitted that the tractor was insured with the appellant - Insurance Company and, therefore, it was liable to make payment of the compensation, if any. The appellant - Insurance Company disputed its liability on the plea that the driver of the tractor was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence and policy conditions were violated. 5. The Tribunal framed as many as three issues. During evidence Omi Devi AW-1, Dhanna Ram AW-2 and Bhanwar Lal AW-3 were examined on behalf of the claimants and several documents were exhibited. On behalf of the non -claimants, despite sufficient opportunity, no evidence was produced. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on 28th September, 2009, the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Kishore Kumar, which resulted in injuries to Teja Ram resulting in his death. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the Tractor driver Kishore Kumar was in possession of valid driving licence. 7. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that on 28th September, 2009, the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Kishore Kumar, which resulted in injuries to Teja Ram resulting in his death. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the Tractor driver Kishore Kumar was in possession of valid driving licence. 7. While dealing with issue relating to grant of compensation, the Tribunal relied on the driving licence Exhibit- 15A of deceased Teja Ram, wherein his date of birth was indicated as 7th January, 1974, based on the salary certificate issued by the Corporation, the gross salary of deceased Teja Ram was taken as Rs. 12,413/- and after taking care of deductions of Rs. 2,117/- net salary was taken as Rs. 10.296/-, thereafter deducting ⅓rd towards personal expenses, adding 40% towards future prospects and applying a multiplier of 17, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 19,60,440/- towards loss of income and further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and consortium, Rs. 15,000/- to the children and parents for loss of love, affection / look - after and in total awarded in sum of Rs. 19,87,440/-. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that the multiplier of 17 adopted by the Tribunal based on schedule under Section 163A of the Act and grant of 40% amount towards future prospects is wholly untenable and is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 , and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set - aside/modified. It is further submitted that the involvement of the tractor has been assumed by the Tribunal based on the challan filed against the driver of the tractor and as such, the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set - aside. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the award impugned. 10. Though, it is true that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 while awarding the compensation, which multiplier is apparently contrary to the table indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the award impugned. 10. Though, it is true that the Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 while awarding the compensation, which multiplier is apparently contrary to the table indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case. However, if the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal as a whole is examined on the touch stone of Sarla Verma's case (supra), the amount awarded is just and proper and it cannot be said to be excessive. The date of birth of deceased Teja Ram was 7th January, 1974, therefore, on the date of accident i.e. 28th September, 2009, he was aged 35 years and, therefore, multiplier of 16 has to be applied. Further in terms of Sarla Verma's case as the claimants are four in number, the deduction for personal expenses would be ¼th and not ⅓rd as directed by the Tribunal and further the future prospects have to be taken at 50% as admittedly deceased was below 40 years age and not 40% as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Applying the said three parameters i.e. Multiplier, deduction on account of personal expenses and future prospects based on Sarla Verma's case, the compensation in the present case towards loss of income would be Rs. 10,296- (¼th =2574) = 7722+ (50%=2572) = 10,294 x 12 x 16 =19,76,448/- 11. In that view of the matter, the award of compensation of Rs. 19,60,440/- towards loss of income cannot be said to be excessive. The rest of the amount granted for funeral expenses, loss of love and affection etc. have not been questioned. 12. Coming to the issue of involvement of the tractor in question. While on behalf of the claimants evidence of AW-2 Dhanna Ram, an eye witness and another driver of the Corporation and AW-3 Bhanwar Lal, booking clerk with the Corporation is quite categoric in this regard and on the other hand, the appellant and/or the owner and driver have failed to lead any evidence in this regard. In that view of the matter, the finding on involvement of tractor and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor cannot be faulted. 13. In view of the above discussions, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. In that view of the matter, the finding on involvement of tractor and the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor cannot be faulted. 13. In view of the above discussions, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******