JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the award dated 4.6.2015, rendered by the learned MACT, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 0100018 of 2013. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 & 2, namely, Virender Singh Negi and Smt. Bhag Manti have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant as well as proforma respondent No. 3 Shyam Singh, for the grant of compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum. According to the averments contained in the claim petition, on 23.10.2012, the deceased was on his way from Dakolar to Shingla on scooter No. HR-01E-2791. At about 11:45 AM, when he reached near Shingla Helipad, he was hit by HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805 from opposite side, being driven by respondent No. 3, namely, Shyam Singh. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and was shifted to Khaneri hospital. Thereafter, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla and ultimately to PGI, Chandigarh. He remained indoor patient from 24.10.2012 to 30.10.2012 at PGI Chandigarh. He succumbed to injuries on 30.10.2012. His post mortem examination was conducted. FIR No. 180/2012 dated 23.10.2012 was registered under Sections 279 & 337 IPC at PS Rampur Bushahr. The deceased was retired Army Officer and drawing monthly pension of Rs. 59,970/-. He was also engaged in agriculture and horticulture pursuits. 3. The petition was contested by appellant and respondent Shyam Singh. On merits, it was submitted by the appellant that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by the deceased. FIR No. 180/2012 dated 23.10.2012 was registered under Sections 279 & 337 IPC at PS Rampur Bushahr. Since the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. Respondent-Shyam Singh in his reply denied that the accident was the outcome of his rash and negligent driving of HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805. He submitted that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter on the part of the deceased. 4. The issues were framed on 28.9.2013, by the learned MACT, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. The learned MACT, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla awarded compensation of Rs. He submitted that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter on the part of the deceased. 4. The issues were framed on 28.9.2013, by the learned MACT, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. The learned MACT, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla awarded compensation of Rs. 23,69,736/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of entire amount along with litigation expenses quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. 5. Mr. G.S. Rathour, Advocate, for the appellant has vehemently argued that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter by the deceased. He then contended that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. He lastly contended that the multiplier of 7 could not be applied. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates and gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 7. Ext. PW-1/E is the copy of FIR No. 180/2012 dated 23.10.2012, registered under Sections 279 & 337 IPC at PS Rampur Bushahr. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Tej Pal Singh, driver of Auto. According to the averments made in the FIR, PW-2 Tej Pal Singh was on his way to village Shingla in his Auto. At about 11:45 AM, when he reached ahead of Shingla Helipad, HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805 crossed and thereafter, he heard the noise of collusion. He stopped his Auto and saw that the accident had taken place between HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805 and scooter No. HR-01E-2791. The scooter driver Bhagwant Dakesh Negi had sustained injuries and he was immediately shifted to Khaneri hospital. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of scooter by its driver. However, when Tej Pal Singh appeared in the Court as PW-2, he tendered his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-2/A. In his affidavit, he has categorically deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805 by its driver. 8. Now, the Court will advert to the statement of PW-3 Dhani Ram, an eye witness of the accident. According to him, he was travelling in HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805. He boarded the bus at Nogidhar from Rampur. As per his affidavit Ext. 8. Now, the Court will advert to the statement of PW-3 Dhani Ram, an eye witness of the accident. According to him, he was travelling in HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805. He boarded the bus at Nogidhar from Rampur. As per his affidavit Ext. PW-3/A, on 23.10.2012, at about 11:45 AM, the bus being driven by respondent-Shyam Singh reached near Shingla Helipad, which hit against scooter No. HR-01E-2791 coming from the opposite side. The scooter, after being hit by the bus, was thrown 30-35 feet on the opposite side. The bus was moving downhill and scooter was coming uphill. He was occupying seat No. 3 and witnessed the manner in which the accident took place. 9. PW-1 Virender Singh Negi is the son of deceased. According to him, the accident took place due the rash and negligent driving of HRTC bus by its driver Shyam Singh. He deposed that the appellant and respondent No. 3 Shyam Singh have got the FIR registered against his father in order to escape the criminal prosecution. His father sustained multiple injuries and his father succumbed to injuries on 30.10.2012. His father was 62 years of age at the time of accident. 10. The claimants have duly proved that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of HRTC bus No. HP-42-0805 by its driver Shyam Singh. The deceased was 62 years of age at the time of the accident. His Pension Payment Order (PPO) is Ext. PW-4/A. According to Ext. PW-4/A, the monthly pension of the deceased was Rs. 37,782/-. The learned MACT, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla has rightly applied the multiplier of 7 to calculate his total income on the basis of Ext. PW-4/A. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards love and affection is also in accordance with law. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses cannot be termed as excessive. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards consortium is also justifiable. The compensation awarded to the claimants/respondents No. 1 & 2 is just and reasonable. 11. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.