JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 28.5.2012 passed by MACT/Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby learned Tribunal was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 3,67,000/- in favour of the claimants along with 7% interest per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the realization of the amount. 2. A claim petition was preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs. 15,20,000/-, inter alia, stating therein that on 23.7.2008, claimant no. 1 was going on his motor cycle at about 11:30 AM and his wife late Smt. Jaya Joshi was pillion rider; When the motor cycle reached near RCM Showroom, Hanuman Mandir, Kusum Khera Crossing, Haldwani, District Nainital, Maruti Van bearing Registration No. UA 04B- 5905, being driven by respondent no. 1 in the claim petition, came with high speed and dashed with the motor cycle bearing Registration No. UA 01- 5229; Driver of the Van bearing Registration No. UA 04B- 5905 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently with high speed; Wife of claimant no. 1 Smt. Jaya Joshi sustained serious injuries and died on the spot; Late Smt. Jaya Joshi was about 37 years of age at the time of accident and death and was working as agent of LIC and Sahara India Ltd. and was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month; Claimant No. 1 has lost his young wife and minor claimant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have lost their mother and, therefore, deprived of her love and affection and care. 3. Owner, driver and insurance company filed their respective written statements stating therein that no accident took place by the Maruti Van bearing Registration No. UA 04B- 5905 and it was wrongly shown involved in the accident in question, therefore, no liability can be fastened either against the owner, the driver or the insurance company. 4. Learned Tribunal framed three issues, which are being reproduced hereinunder : (1) As to whether on 23.7.2008 at about 11:30 AM when Smt. Jaya Joshi was pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing registration no. UA- 01-5229 being driven by claimant no. 1, Maruti Van bearing registration no. UA 04B- 5905 being driven by respondent no. 1 with high speed rashly and negligent dashed with the motor cycle resulting in the death of Smt. Jaya Joshi? UA- 01-5229 being driven by claimant no. 1, Maruti Van bearing registration no. UA 04B- 5905 being driven by respondent no. 1 with high speed rashly and negligent dashed with the motor cycle resulting in the death of Smt. Jaya Joshi? (2) As to whether on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no. UA 04B- 5905 was having valid driving license? (3) As to whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation and, if yes, to what extent and from whom? 5. Learned Tribunal while placing reliance on the statement of PW2 Sri Girish Chandra Joshi has recorded finding of fact to the effect that when Smt. Jaya Joshi was going on motor cycle bearing registration No. UA 01- 5229, being driven by her husband/claimant no. 1, as a pillion rider and motor cycle reached near Hanuman temple, Kusum Khera Crossing, Haldwani, Van bearing No. UA 04B- 5905, being driven by respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently and with high speed, dashed with the motor cycle resulting in the death of Smt. Jaya Joshi. It has further been held by the Tribunal that Girish Chandra Joshi, PW2, was not cross-examined either by the owner or the driver of the Van, therefore, statement of PW2 Girish Chandra Joshi stands uncontroverted, thus, involvement of vehicle bearing registration no. UA 04B- 5905, being driven by respondent no. 1 with high speed rashly and negligently, stands proved. 6. Learned Tribunal has drawn notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month and, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, has assessed the notional annual income at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- and applied the multiplier of 11. Learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of company of the wife and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, total Rs. 3,67,000/- and directed the insurance company to make payment along with 7 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made. Feeling aggrieved, insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 7. This Court, vide order dated 20.12.2012, was pleased to condone the delay in filing the Cross-objections by the claimants and was further pleased to admit the Cross-objections preferred by the claimants. 8. I have heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Feeling aggrieved, insurance company has preferred the present appeal. 7. This Court, vide order dated 20.12.2012, was pleased to condone the delay in filing the Cross-objections by the claimants and was further pleased to admit the Cross-objections preferred by the claimants. 8. I have heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Z.U. Siddiquie, Advocate for the claimants/respondents, and have carefully perused the record. 9. Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that factum of the accident is not proved, in view of the fact that in the FIR neither vehicle number was given nor the name of the driver was given; Moreover, the police after investigation filed final report in the matter. Further contends that if factum of accident is not proved, no liability can be fastened against the insurance company. 10. In the present case, PW2 Girish Chandra Joshi was produced in the witness box, who is eye-witness of the accident/incident. He has stated on oath that the accident was caused by the Van bearing registration no. UA 04B- 5905, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 with high speed rashly and negligently. Despite giving opportunity to the owner and the driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent nos. 1 & 2, no cross-examination was made either by the owner or by the driver of the vehicle. The only cross-examination was made by the insurance company. Undisputedly, no officer of the insurance company was present at the time of accident on the spot, therefore, cross-examination made by the insurance company on the basis of informations gathered from the owner and the driver of the vehicle has no evidentiary value. 11. In my considered opinion, factum of accident can be disputed only by the owner or the driver of the vehicle. Since, no cross-examination was made by the owner or the driver of the vehicle, therefore, statement of PW2 stands uncontroverted. Therefore, learned Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction while accepting the uncontroverted statement of PW2. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 as well as Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 , was pleased to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs. 25,000/- towards the funeral expenses. 13. Undisputedly, claimant nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the minors who have not only lost their mother but are also deprived of love, affection and guidance from their mother. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of care and guidance for minor children seems to be justified. 14. Undisputedly, in the present case, although claimants have alleged that Smt. Jaya Joshi was working as agent of LIC and Sahara India Ltd, however, no material was produced on the record to prove the same. A young housewife has very important role to play in the family affairs. The responsibility of house keeping and looking after minor children is itself a job, therefore, notional income as assessed by the learned Tribunal at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month seems to be totally justified. Learned Tribunal was correct in making deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure. Since, the deceased was only 37 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 11 shall be applicable in the present case. Therefore, to find out the correct compensation, following chart would be relevant. 1. Total annual income for calculation of compensation (after deducting personal expenses of the deceased) (Rs. 2,000 X 12 ) - Rs. 24,000/- 2. Multiplier (considering the age of the deceased as 37 years) - 11 3. Total amount 24,000 X 11 - Rs. 2,64,000/- 4. Loss of Consortium - Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Loss of care and guidance For minor children - Rs. 1,00,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses - Rs. 25,000/- 15. In my considered opinion, learned Tribunal has failed to award the correct compensation, therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed, however, cross-objections filed by the claimants are liable to be allowed. 16. Consequently, appeal is dismissed, however, cross-objections are allowed, and it is directed that the insurance company shall pay Rs. 4,89,000/- towards compensation to the claimants along with 7 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitioner till actual payment is made to the claimants. 17. Amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith. 18. 4,89,000/- towards compensation to the claimants along with 7 % interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitioner till actual payment is made to the claimants. 17. Amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith. 18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 19. CLMA Nos. 12065 of 2012 and 5105 of 2014 also stand disposed of accordingly.