JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J (oral) The appellant/Corporation, in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act), has assailed award dated 27.09.2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 21 of 2009, titled as Jagdish Chand Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, allowing the claim petition filed by Jagdish Chand and Ritu Devi, respondents herein, under Section 166 of the Act. 2. Findings of fact are to the following effect:- (i) Master Kartik, son of claimants Jagdish Chand and Ritu Devi, died in the road accident on 04.06.2009; (ii) Accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-72-0434 owned by HRTC, in which Master Kartik was travelling; (iii) The deceased at the time of his death was 4 years of age and as such his notional income for determining compensation payable to his parents was taken to be Rs.15,000/- per annum; (iv) By applying a multiplier of 15, claimants were entitled for compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15000 x 12) on this count and Rs.50,000 on account of pain and suffering; and (v) The vehicle was owned by HRTC and as such liability to pay the total amount of compensation amounting to Rs.2,75,000/- was fastened upon the respondents being owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. 2. The factum of occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. That Master Kartik died in the said accident is also not in dispute. That accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act and conduct of driver Jagtar Singh, stands established on record through the testimony of an eye witness Smt. Bandna (PW.3). That vehicle was owned by HRTC is also not in dispute. 3. This leaves with the remaining question, as to whether following amount awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable:- “Compensation Rs.15,000 x 15 = Rs.2,25,000/- Pain and suffering = Rs.50,000/- Total = Rs.2,75,000/- 4. While awarding a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- in favour of the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, Tribunal has rightly determined the income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum and applied a multiplier of 15. The ratio of law laid down by the Delhi High Court in Manwari Versus Harsh Vardhan and others, 2010 ACJ 1977 has been correctly appreciated and applied. 5. The ratio of law laid down by the Delhi High Court in Manwari Versus Harsh Vardhan and others, 2010 ACJ 1977 has been correctly appreciated and applied. 5. In my considered view, amount of compensation so awarded in terms of the impugned award cannot be said to be on the higher side. The same is well within the settled parameters of law and as such does not require any interference. The award cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, erroneous, unreasonable or contrary to the settled principles of law. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.