JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.P. Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In view of the office report dated 4.12.2017, notice of appeal was sent to respondent No. 4, who is the owner of the vehicle, but the same has not been received back after service. However, we have proceeded to hear the appeal without respondent No. 4 being represented by any counsel as his presence is not necessary for a decision of the appeal. 3. The present first appeal from order has been filed by the defendant No. 1/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 3.12.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 322 of 2010. 4. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 322 of 2010 was instituted by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stating that on 22.2.2010, Shyam Veer Singh i.e. respondent No. 3 and his brother Vijendra Singh were going on a motorcycle (No. U.P. 85 U-8396). The motorcycle was hit by Innova Car No. U.P. 85 W-9292 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘offending vehicle’) as a result of which Sri Vijendra Singh was injured and subsequently died on 29.4.2010 due to injuries caused in the said accident. It was stated in the claim petition that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It has been further stated in the claim petition that the deceased Vijendra Singh was under treatment from 22.2.2010 to 29.4.2010 for the injuries caused in the accident. It was also stated in the claim petition that before his death the deceased Vijendra Singh was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and was the sole bread earner of the family. The claimant-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Vijendra Singh and the claimant respondent No. 3 is the brother of the deceased Vijendra Singh. Defendant No. 2/respondent No. 4 was the owner of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with defendant No. 1/appellant. On the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant-respondents prayed for a compensation of Rs. 24 lakh from the owner as well as the insurance company. 5. Defendant No. 2/respondent No. 4 was the owner of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was insured with defendant No. 1/appellant. On the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant-respondents prayed for a compensation of Rs. 24 lakh from the owner as well as the insurance company. 5. The defendant No. 2 who is respondent No. 4 in the present appeal and owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition by filing his written statement and in the aforesaid written statement, the defendant No. 2 admitted the incident/accident but denied the details of the accident as stated in the claim petition. In his written statement, the defendant No. 2 stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of motorcycle i.e. the claimant No. 3 (who is the opposite party No. 3 in the present appeal). Describing the details of accident, the defendant No. 2 stated in his written statement that the motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver as a result of which it incidentally colluded with the offending vehicle when the driver of the motorcycle lost balance because of the high speed of the motorcycle when a Neel Gai was crossing the road. In light of the aforesaid description of the incident, the defendant No. 2 pleaded that he is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident did not occur due to the driver of the offending vehicle but due to the fault of respondent No. 3/claimant who was driving the motorcycle on the fateful day. In his written statement, the defendant No. 2 further pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the appellant/defendant No. 1 and at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle was being operated in accordance with the terms of insurance policy by a driver who had a valid driving license and therefore defendant No. 1-appellant i.e. the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants in case it was held that the accident was caused due to any fault on part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. The appellant-defendant No. 1 also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement in which, amongst other pleadings, it denied its liability to pay compensation by pleading that there had been no accident involving the offending vehicle. 6. The appellant-defendant No. 1 also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement in which, amongst other pleadings, it denied its liability to pay compensation by pleading that there had been no accident involving the offending vehicle. In the alternative it also pleaded that there was no question of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of motorcycle No. U.P. 85 U-8396). On the basis of the aforesaid averments and pleadings, the appellant/defendant No. 1 denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of Sri Vijendra Singh. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : i) Whether Vijendra Singh was injured on 22.2.2010 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Innova Car No. U.P. 85 W-9292 by its driver and whether due to the aforesaid injuries Sri Vijendra Singh died during treatment? ii) Whether the offending vehicle was insured with defendant No. 1? iii) Whether on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license? iv) Whether the claimants were entitled to any compensation? If yes, the amount of compensation as well as the defendant liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. Documentary evidence were filed by the parties to prove their case. The claimants filed the medical bills showing the expenses incurred in treatment of Vijendra Singh through list marked as paper No. 15 Ga as well as 23 Ga/1 in the Tribunal. The defendant No. 2/owner of the vehicle filed the driving license which was numbered as paper No. 11 Ga in the Tribunal and the insurance policy which was numbered as paper No. 13 Ga in the Tribunal. The claimants also produced Kishan Singh, Shyam Singh and Rajeev Singh as plaintiff witness No. 1, plaintiff witness No. 2 and plaintiff witness No. 3, respectively, as oral witnesses to prove their case as set up in the claim petition. It is noteworthy that no witness was examined before the Tribunal by either of the defendants. 9. The claimants also produced Kishan Singh, Shyam Singh and Rajeev Singh as plaintiff witness No. 1, plaintiff witness No. 2 and plaintiff witness No. 3, respectively, as oral witnesses to prove their case as set up in the claim petition. It is noteworthy that no witness was examined before the Tribunal by either of the defendants. 9. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants by holding that Vijendra Singh had died due to injuries caused in an accident occurring due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle on 22.2.2010. On issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was insured with the defendant No. 1/appellant on the date of accident and therefore, defendant No. 1/appellant was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Further, the Tribunal after considering the income of the deceased and by applying a multiplier based on the age of the parents of the deceased as well as after considering the alleged medical expenses incurred by the claimants in the treatment of Sri Vijendra Singh awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,35,684/- to the claimants with an interest of 6% from the date of filing the claim petition. 10. During the arguments in the case, the counsel for the insurance company challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 3.12.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura only on two grounds. Firstly, that from the evidence on record, it was evident that there was a contributory negligence of the driver of motorcycle No. U.P. 85 U-8396 in causing the accident which injured Sri Vijendra Singh and ultimately resulted in his death and therefore, appropriate deductions should have been made by the Tribunal on the ground of contributory negligence while deciding the compensation payable to the claimants. Secondly that the medical bills produced by the claimants showing the expenses incurred on the treatment of Vijendra Singh were not proved by the claimants and therefore, the judgmemt and award dated 3.12.2010 is liable to be set aside so far as it quantified the compensation relying on the said bills. 11. Secondly that the medical bills produced by the claimants showing the expenses incurred on the treatment of Vijendra Singh were not proved by the claimants and therefore, the judgmemt and award dated 3.12.2010 is liable to be set aside so far as it quantified the compensation relying on the said bills. 11. Rebutting the aforesaid argument of the counsel for appellant, the counsel for claimant has argued that the accident as stated in the claim petition was proved by the witnesses of the claimants before the Tribunal and the medical bills produced by the claimants were proved by plaintiff witness No. 3. The counsel for claimants has argued that, for the said reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as there is no illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 13. On the basis of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, only two questions are to be decided by this Court: i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is correct i.e. whether the accident resulting in the death of Sri Vijendra Singh had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and whether there was any contributing negligence by the driver of the motorcycle in causing the said accident? ii) Whether the medical bills submitted by the claimants claiming the expenses incurred by them in the treatment of Sri Vijendra Singh for the injuries caused to him in the aforesaid accident had been proved in the Tribunal? 14. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is noteworthy that in his written statement, the defendant No. 2 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle had not denied the incident but had merely pleaded that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver but had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle who lost balance because of the high speed of the motorcycle when a Neel Gai crossed the road and consequently the motorcycle colluded, with the offending vehicle, injuring Vijendra Singh. No witness was produced by either of the defendants, including the owner of the offending vehicle, to prove the pleadings made in the written statement. No witness was produced by either of the defendants, including the owner of the offending vehicle, to prove the pleadings made in the written statement. It is noteworthy that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Innova Car No. U.P. 85 W-9292 was not produced by the owner of the vehicle as a witness to prove the averments made in the written statement. The defendant No. 1-insurance company in its written statement, had denied the incident itself and the averment regarding negligence of motorcycle driver appears to have been stated as a mere formality by the insurance company in its written statement. In this context, paragraph No. 7 of the written statement of the insurance company, which is relevant for the purposes of the case, is reproduced below: “7. That from the details in the petition it is clear that there has been no accident from the Car in question and there has been no question of any kind of negligence of its driver and the accident if any caused then it happened due to negligence of the alleged driver of the M/cycle No. UP85-Q-8396 on which the deceased was travelling and the petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of the wrong & illegal act of the deceased who himself has been responsible for the alleged mishap because of his illegal act & who contributed in the mishap and invited trouble and the petition is bad for misjoinder of O.P. No. 1 and 2 who have been impleaded unnecessarily and deserve to be deleted.” (emphasis added) 15. It would be evident from the recital made in paragraph No. 7 of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company that the facts as stated by the insurance company in its written statement were mere inferences from the details given in the claim petition. We have no hesitation in holding that in the aforesaid paragraph, the insurance company has not unequivocally pleaded contributory negligence or any negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. As recorded earlier, no witness was produced by either of the defendants to prove the averment made by the owner of the vehicle (defendant No. 2) in its written statement describing the accident or to prove contributory negligence of the driver of the motorcycle. On the other hand, the accident as pleaded by the claimants was proved by the witnesses of the claimants. On the other hand, the accident as pleaded by the claimants was proved by the witnesses of the claimants. Thus, we reject the submission of learned counsel for the insurance company/appellant and uphold the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 to the effect that Vijendra Singh was injured in an accident caused on 22.2.2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and as a result of the aforesaid injuries, Sri Vijendra Singh died on 29.4.2010. 16. So far as the second issue is concerned i.e. whether the medical bills produced by the claimants showing the alleged expenses incurred by them in the treatment of Vijendra Singh were proved or not, we have perused the statement of plaintiff witness No. 3, which has been annexed as annexure No. 3 to the affidavit in support of the stay application filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal. Sri Rajeev Singh, the Manager of Agarwal Life Line Hospital, Mathura (where the deceased was treated) was produced as PW-3 by the claimants. A perusal of the deposition of PW-3 shows that he has only proved the medical bills filed before the Tribunal and marked as paper No. 15 Ga/15 to 15Ga/26 and has stated that according to the records of the hospital, a total amount of Rs.35,913/- was incurred in the treatment of the deceased in his hospital. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW-3 is reproduced here-in-below: eaS vxzoky ykbQ ykbu gkfLiVy eFkqjk esa eSustj ds in ij rSukr gWw rFkk gekjs gkfLiVy esa--------------ds fy, e; fjdkMZ fotsUnz flag dk lEeu igqapk FkkA eSa vkt vly fjdkMZ ysdj vk;k gwWA ftldh QksVks izfr MkDVj }kjk izekf.kr djkdj i=koyh ij nkf[ky dj jgk gwWA i=koyh ij miyCèk 15 xq.kk@15 yxk;r 15 xq.kk@26 gekjs mDr gkfLiVy ds fcy o MkDVjh eqvk;uk gS tks gekjs fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj lgh gSA dkxt la[;k 15 xq.kk@15 tks fotsUnz flag dh esfMdy fjiksVZ gS blesa pkSFkh ykbu ij 0-20 ,Œ,eŒ xyrh ls fy[k x;k gS tcfd mDr ejht gekjs gkfLiVy esa 9-20 ihŒ,eŒ ij HkrhZ gqvk FkkA 9-20 ,Œ,eŒ dh txg dfVax djkdj MkDVj lkgc }kjk izekf.kr djkdj 9-20 ihŒ,eŒ dh QksVks izfr nkf[ky dj jgk gwWA gekjs fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj ?kk;y ls 35]913@& :i;s gkfLiVy o nokbZ;ksa o VsfLVax ds fy, fy,s x;s FksA 17. However, the Tribunal without recording any finding on the genuineness of the medical bills filed by the claimants, has awarded Rs. 2,66,684/- for the expenses allegedly incurred in the treatment of the deceased. We hold that the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is against evidence and erroneous and is liable to be set aside and we also hold that medical bills for Rs. 35,913/- were proved by the claimants in the Tribunal. Normally, on the aforesaid findings, we would have partly allowed the appeal and would have reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. But, for reasons recorded subsequently we have refrained from reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 18. From a perusal of the judgment, we find that the method applied by the Tribunal while calculating the compensation to be awarded to the claimants for the death of Sri Vijendra Singh is faulty and is not in accordance with law. The Tribunal has calculated the compensation on the basis of a notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 from the aforesaid income of the deceased and calculated the dependency of the claimants as Rs.24,000/- per annum. We do not find any error or illegality in the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal and therefore, we hold that the Tribunal has rightly calculated compensation by holding the dependency of the claimants on the deceased as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. However, the Tribunal has calculated the total compensation payable to the claimants by applying a multiplier of 11 considering the age of the parents of the deceased i.e. claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Applying the aforesaid multiplier of 11, the Tribunal has calculated the total compensation payable as Rs.2,64,000/- (24,000 X 11). After adding Rs.2,64,000/- to Rs.2,66,684 (the alleged medical expenses claimed by the claimants) the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,35,684/- to the claimants. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid method applied by the Tribunal to calculate the total compensation payable to the claimants. 19. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the future prospects in the income of the deceased. It is on record that the deceased was 33 years old on the date of accident. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid method applied by the Tribunal to calculate the total compensation payable to the claimants. 19. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the future prospects in the income of the deceased. It is on record that the deceased was 33 years old on the date of accident. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (4) TAC 673 (SC), 40% as future prospects was to be added in the notional income of the deceased while calculating the compensation payable to the claimants. 40% of Rs. 24,000/- is Rs. 9,600/-. Thus total dependency of the claimants on the deceased would be Rs.33,600/-. 20. In view of the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the multiplier shall be decided on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependents. The deceased at the time of his death was 33 years of age. Therefore, the multiplier, according to the principle laid down in paragraph No. 42 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 , would be 16 and according to the second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the multiplier would be 17. The said multiplier shall be applied on an amount of Rs. 33,600/-. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total amount as compensation quantifies to Rs.5,37,600/- and after applying the multiplier of 17, the total amount as compensation quantifies to Rs.5,71,200/-. It is also relevant to point out that no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. Applying the law laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation that would have been payable to the claimants is Rs.5,37,600/- + 35,913/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/- i.e. Rs.6,03,513/- (if the multiplier as given in the Sarla Verma (supra) is applied). However, the same would be 5,78,000/- + 35,913/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/- i.e. Rs.6,37,113/- (if the multiplier given in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is applied). However, the same would be 5,78,000/- + 35,913/- + 15,000/- + 15,000/- i.e. Rs.6,37,113/- (if the multiplier given in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is applied). The Rs.35,913/- included in the calculations is the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased and proved by the claimants in the Tribunal. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid calculation, the claimants would be entitled to an increase in the compensation amount as they have been awarded only Rs. 5,35,684/- by the Tribunal which is less than what the claimants are entitled to under the law. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid amounts have been calculated by adding only Rs. 35,913/- as the medical expenses incurred by the claimants in the treatment of the deceased Sri Vijendra Singh. But since no appeal has been filed by the claimants, therefore, we are not interfering in favour of the claimants to increase the compensation amount. 21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, even though the findings of the Tribunal regarding the expenses incurred by the claimants on the medical treatment of the deceased are erroneous, we refuse to interfere in appeal and to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.