JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against award dated 02.07.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Ist Fast Track Court, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 145 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 45,42,000/- as compensation to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.04.2003 Mukul Pandey (deceased) alongwith two others namely Mamta Joshi (PW2) and G.C.Joshi was on his way from Haldwani to Nainital in Maruti car bearing Registration No. HR26Q/3627, when the car reached near Baldiya Khan due to the technical fault, it went out of control and fell down in a deep gorge. Mukul Pandey received grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The deceased was sports person and his earning from transport business was allegedly Rs. 30,000/- per month. The claimants No. 1 and 2 Harish Chandra Padney and Hansa Pandey (present respondent No. 1 & 2) are parents of the deceased and claimant/respondent No. 3 Himanshu Pandey is the minor brother of the deceased. The claimants claimed Rs. 30,00,000/- as amount of compensation from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant) with whom the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. The respondent No.4 Sunil Kumar was the owner of the vehicle. 4. Respondent No. 4 Sunil Kumar filed his written statement and admitted the accident and that the same occurred due to the technical fault in the vehicle. 5. On the other hand, appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. contested the claim petition and filed a separate written statement. It is pleaded by the Insurance Company that the claim petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the company is not liable to pay compensation unless there is no violation of the terms of the policy, and the defendant had a valid license. 6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- (i) Whether on 03.04.2003 while Mukul Pandey (deceased) alongwith Km. It is further pleaded that the company is not liable to pay compensation unless there is no violation of the terms of the policy, and the defendant had a valid license. 6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:- (i) Whether on 03.04.2003 while Mukul Pandey (deceased) alongwith Km. Mamta Joshti and G.C.Joshi, in taking Maruti car bearing Registration No. HR26Q/3627 from Haldwani to Nainital, the vehicle due to the technical fault fell in a deep gorge due to which Mukul Pandey suffered injuries and died of the same ? (ii) Whether the driver had a valid driving license and other papers of the vehicle ? (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation due to the death of Mukul Pandey, if so what amount and from whom are they entitled ? 7. The tribunal after recording the evidence decided issue No.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants. With regard to issue No.3 it was found that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,42,000/- from the insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured at the time of accident. Aggrieved by award dated 02.07.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Ist Fast Track Court, Haldwani, this appeal is filed by the Insurance company. 8. PW2 Mamta Joshi is the eyewitness of the accident who was in the vehicle at the time of the accident with the deceased. She has stated that on 03.04.2003, she alongwith G.C. Joshi and Mukul Pandey (deceased) was going in Maruti car bearing Registration No. HR26Q/3627 to Nainital. She further told that at 2.30 pm when the car reached near Baldiya Khan due to the technical fault it got uncontrolled and fell in deep gorge. The witness further narrated that Mukul Pandey suffered injuries and died in the accident. As such, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is fully corroborated by the ocular testimony of the eyewitness, and requires no interference. 9. On issue No. 2, on behalf of the claimants, driving license of Mukul Pandey which is Paper No. 38C/11 was filed before the tribual. Apart from that, on behalf of the claimants, copy of the Registration Certificate of vehicle Paper No. 6C/4, copy of the policy Cover Note Paper No. 6C/5 and 6C/6 were filed. 9. On issue No. 2, on behalf of the claimants, driving license of Mukul Pandey which is Paper No. 38C/11 was filed before the tribual. Apart from that, on behalf of the claimants, copy of the Registration Certificate of vehicle Paper No. 6C/4, copy of the policy Cover Note Paper No. 6C/5 and 6C/6 were filed. From the perusal of these documents the Tribunal has rightly found that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., as the Cover Note was for the period of 11.04.2002 to 10.04.2003. The driving license was also found valid by the tribunal. There is nothing on the record which shows that the findings of the tribunal are erroneous in law. 10. As far as, the amount of compensation is concerned, it has come on the record that the deceased was an income tax payee. Copy of income tax return (Paper No. 38C/14) was filed showing that the deceased had earned Rs. 60,000/- in the assessment year 2002 - 2003. It has also come on the record as stated by PW3 Narendra Saraswat and PW4 Bhushan Kumar that Mukul Pandey was owner of two transport buses. However, considering the age of the claimant Harish Chandra Pandey is 62 years and that of claimant No. 2 Hansa Devi is 52 years, multiplier of eleven was applied by the Tribunal after assessing the dependency of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per annum, (deducting 1/3 of Rs. 60,000/- which the deceased would have spent towards his own expenses). There appears no illegality in the assessment made by the Tribunal in the above circumstances of the case. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was bachelor, and the deduction should have been half of his income. However, as the law existed when the accident had occurred, and the claim petition was filed, the deduction of 1/3 of the income of the deceased which he would have spent on himself cannot be said to be unjust or improper. Accordingly, the finding on issue No. 3 also requires no interference on the part of this court. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is dismissed.