JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 19.11.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, (Court No. 2), Meerut awarding a sum of Rs.26,88,000/- along with 7% simple interest from the date of making the claim-petition till the date of actual payment. 2. A claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of one Nitish Kumar Rai in an accident on 18.07.2013 while he was going on his motor-cycle to NOIDA by offending Tractor bearing registration no. UP-15A-6854. 3. Tribunal after analyzing the evidence oral as well as documentary brought on record by the parties returned a finding that accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending Tractor causing death of Nitish Kumar Rai on spot. Tribunal further held that tractor was having a valid permit and driver had a valid driving license. The age of the deceased was determined by tribunal on the basis of date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate as 25 years 01 month and 13 days on the date of accident. Tribunal found that claimants have proved by cogent evidence that deceased was drawing salary of Rs.16,500/- per month from working as site supervisor in Ati Interiors Pvt. Limited, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. Tribunal also awarded 50% of monthly salary towards future prospects and determined compensation applying multiplier of 18. Further, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5000/- towards love and affection and Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate was also awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that tribunal though recorded a finding that site plan produced in evidence prepared by the police during investigation is incomplete yet placing reliance on the same has held that it was not a case of contributory negligence whereas since the accident was a result of head on collision, tribunal ought to have considered the issue of contributory negligence. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. From a perusal of award, the finding that there was no contributory negligence is not solely based upon site plan but tribunal has also relied upon the testimony of P. W. 2' who was eye-witness and scribe of the first information report. Version of the accident given by P. W. 2' in his testimony corroborates the site plan which clearly goes to show that tractor came on its right hand side and hit the motorcycle which was driven in left lane and thus, it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. We find no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that merely because it was a case of head on collision, it could be a result of contributory negligence. 7. It has next been contended that deceased was not a permanent employee even though benefit of future prospects has been awarded illegally. Admittedly, the date of accident is 18.07.2013 i. e. after the amendment was incorporated in Rule 220-A of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules providing for future prospects since does not draw any distinction between permanent employee or temporary or salaried person or self employed person as such no distinction can be drawn while granting future prospects as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. The award of future prospects is in accordance with rules applicable in State of U.P. 8. Last submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the age of the deceased in accordance with the High School Certificate was above 25 years, thus, in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another. 2009 (2) TAC-677, he was within the age group of 26 to 30 years and multiplier of 17 should have been applied whereas tribunal has multiplied 18 which is applicable to the age group of 21 to 25 years. Sri Rajendra Pal Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of claimant-respondents, at this stage, submitted that since in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra) the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied, appeal itself may be disposed of at this stage without calling for record. 9. Sri Rajendra Pal Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of claimant-respondents, at this stage, submitted that since in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra) the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied, appeal itself may be disposed of at this stage without calling for record. 9. Since both the learned counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of this appeal wherein only the issue of application of multiplier is involved and that too also stands settled by adjudication of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra), we are proceeding to dispose of the appeal finally at this stage. 10. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma (supra), tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 18 which is applicable to age group of 21 to 25. Since admittedly, deceased was more than 25 years, multiplier prescribed in case of a deceased aged between 26 to 30 years, which is 17, ought to have been applied. Thus, by applying multiplier of 17 amount of compensation comes to Rs.25,39,500/- which is acceptable to learned counsel for both the parties. 11. In view of the above, appeal stands allowed to the extent that claimant-respondents would be entitled to receive a compensation of a sum of Rs.25,39,500/- along with interest as awarded by the tribunal from the Insurance Company and the award of the tribunal stands modified to that extent. The statutory deposit made by the appellant before this Court be returned to the appellant.