JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. None has turned up on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6 despite sufficient service while Mr. Sarvesh Aggarwal is present for the appellant and Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. P.K. Chauhan, Advocate, is representing respondent no.7- Jameel, who was the owner of offending vehicle. 2. The only ground challenging the impugned judgment is that on some previous occasion, an award of Rs.2.71 lakh was rendered by the Tribunal for the same accident to respondent nos.1 to 6 but since such award was ex parte, so it was got set aside on the application of the insurance company. After representation of insurance company, when the matter was again heard on merits, then the impugned judgment was rendered granting award of Rs.4,23,200/- (Rupees four lakh twenty three thousand and two hundred). 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order and found that the annual notional income of the deceased has been ascribed to Rs.36,000/-. Since, there were six family members dependent on him, so the Tribunal has reduced 1/5th of such notional annual income making it to Rs.28,800/-. 5. In the post-mortem report, 40 years’ age was mentioned but the claimants have disclosed the age of deceased as 45 years. On this disclosure, the multiplier of -14- was applied, as has been contemplated in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another’ III (2009) ACC 708 (SC). 6. I find no infirmity in the application of such multiplier as well as taking the notional income of the deceased. 7. That apart, only a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded in lieu of loss of estate, cremation and loss of consortium. This amount, in such respective scores, is also not exorbitant. 8. All told, there is no infirmity in the award rendered by the Tribunal. So, this appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let the LCR be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment, with the direction that the amount kept in the Fixed Deposit be disbursed to the claimants as per their respective shares. 10. Interim order dated 17.07.2012 stands vacated accordingly.