JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.—By way of this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1988”) at the instance of appellant-Insurance Company who has felt aggrieved by the award of Tribunal. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,83,000/- for the death of only breadwinner as against claim petition was for claiming Rs. 28,04,000/- as compensation. 2. Brief facts necessary for our purpose are that on 27.7.2015 at around 7 pm, when deceased Bhuaal Gaud, having completed his work as a plumber, was returning home on bicycle from Rudrapur and came onto the Rudrapur - Madanpur Road near Kurna Nullah, then the driver of motorcycle No. U.P.52Y/0779 by driving rashly and negligently from the wrong side hit the deceased damaging his cycle and causing grave and critical injuries to him, he was first brought to the Primary Health Centre, Rudrapur where he was declared dead upon reaching the hospital by the doctor. The aforesaid accident occurred due to collision caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle No. U.P.52Y/0779. The accident took place under PS Rudrapur, district Deoria. Deceased was 39 years of age, at the time of accident, deceased earned Rs. 12000/- per month from plumbing and agricultural work. Report of the incident was lodged at PS Rudrapur, district Deoria as Case Crime No 883/2015 under Sections 279, 304A IPC. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of deceased, petitioner nos 2 & 3 are his major son and daughter, petitioner no 4 is his minor daughter and petitioner no 5 is his minor son. Respondent no 1 is the owner of motorcycle no U.P.52Y/0779, respondent no 2 the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company is the insurer of the aforesaid motorcycle and respondent no 3 is the driver of vehicle in question. 4. It was the case of claimant that on account of untimely death of the deceased they were entitled to get Rs. 23,04,000/- for reduction in income assessed on the basis of life expectancy, Rs. 1,00,000/- for funeral and last rites, Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental and physical loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- for property loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- for future prospects and Rs. 1,00,000/- for medication and treatment, thus totalling Rs. 28,04,000/- with interest payable @ 12 % per annum. 5. 23,04,000/- for reduction in income assessed on the basis of life expectancy, Rs. 1,00,000/- for funeral and last rites, Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental and physical loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- for property loss, Rs. 1,00,000/- for future prospects and Rs. 1,00,000/- for medication and treatment, thus totalling Rs. 28,04,000/- with interest payable @ 12 % per annum. 5. On behalf of opposite party No. 1-Durgesh Mani Tripathi, owner of the vehicle, a reply (22/A1) was submitted denying the averments made in the petition and submitting in his special statement that no cause of action has arisen for the petitioners to file claim petition against the respondents. On the alleged date and time, no accident was caused by the motorcycle No. UP 52 Y 0779 owned by him (the opposite party); nor was any injury caused to Bhuaal Gaud; and nor did his death result from aforesaid injuries. At the time of the said accident, the aforementioned motorcycle of the respondent was insured with the opposite party, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. The driver of the vehicle in question had a valid and effective licence. Deceased Bhuaal was not engaged in any business; nor did he have any steady income. The amount sought as compensation of the petition is fictitious. Hence, the petition filed against him was liable to be dismissed. 6. A written statement (15/A1) was submitted by the opposite party 2, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, wherein the said company, while refuting the averments made in the petition, submitted in its additional statement that no accident occurred between the motorcycle No. UP 52 Y 0779 and the cycle driven by Bhuaal Gaud on Rudrapur - Madanpur road near Kurna Nullah under PS Rudrapur in district Deoria at 7:00 PM on 27.7.2015; nor was any injury caused on the person of Bhuaal Gaud; and nor did his death result from these injuries. At the time of occurrence, the driver of the motorcycle No. UP 52 Y 0779 did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive a motorcycle. The motorcycle No. UP 52 Y 0779, at the time of occurrence, was also not insured with the opposite party being the insurance company; nor were the provisions of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 complied with. The motorcycle No. UP 52 Y 0779, at the time of occurrence, was also not insured with the opposite party being the insurance company; nor were the provisions of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 complied with. If the alleged accident, on the strength of evidence, is proved to have taken place, the owner and driver of the motorcycle No. UP 52 Y 0779 should have accordingly informed the opposite party 2 (insurance company), inasmuch as Section 134 C of the Motor Vehicle Act provides for information to be immediately given to the insurer; which provision has not been followed by the owner and driver of the vehicle. The deceased was not a plumber or engaged in agricultural work; nor did he have any income. The age of the deceased is wrongly shown against his actual one. Inflated amount has been sought in a wrong manner by the petitioners wishing to get excessive compensation. Hence, they are not entitled to get any compensation and the petition of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that claim petition was filed within a period of six days from accident having taken place which causes doubt about the involvement of vehicle, second ground urged was that the Tribunal fell in error in granting the multiplier of 15 which is not as per coloumn-4 in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, compared to the age of deceased. 8. The age of deceased was considered to be 40 when he met with accident as per Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) in bracket of 36-40 years the multiplier has to be 15 and therefore submission of learned counsel for Insurance Company that the multiplier awarded is excessive cannot be sustained and is rejected. This takes this Court to the submission that the addition of 30% to the unskilled employee is bad. Judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) it is held : “11. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. Judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) it is held : “11. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary’ should be read as `actual salary less tax’]. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” 9. The said decision has been reiterated by Apex Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), and therefore, the said 30 years of further income which has been added to future prospect cannot be said to be bad hence the said submission is also rejected. 10. As far as the submission of learned counsel to the fact that claim petition was filed within a very short time and even before the driver can obtained bail, cannot be sustained as that ground was not urged nor was pleaded in the written submission which is appended to appeal as Annexure 2 and, therefore, it is now not open to Insurance Company to raise this content even if it is so the said fact cannot be ground for avoiding liability fastened under Chapter XI of Act, 1988. 11. No other ground is raised. 12. This appeal is dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 13. Amount of Rs. 11. No other ground is raised. 12. This appeal is dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 13. Amount of Rs. 25,000/-, deposited in the Registry, shall be remitted to Court below forthwith.