JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, have been preferred against a common judgment and award dated 21.08.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur, whereby four claim petitions filed by the claimants have been allowed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on the fateful date of 31.05.2016 between 3.00 & 4.00 p.m. deceased Kuber Lal was riding a Motor-cycle bearing No. RJ 27 15M 7076 alongwith Fatah Lal as the pillion rider, and another Motor-cycle bearing No. RJ 27-LS 2854 was seated by Gopal as the rider and Jagdish as the pillion rider, when a Truck bearing Registration No. RJ 27-GB 1657 rashly and negligently driven by its owner cum driver, rammed into vehicle the two Motor-cycles resulting in a head-on collision causing fatal injuries to the persons riding the aforesaid two motor-cycles and grave and abrasive injuries to the pillion riders. 3. On account of the injuries, Kuber Lal and Gopal succumbed to death, while Fatah Lal and Jagdish had to remain hospitalized. The claimants, being legal representatives of Kuber Lal and Gopal filed Claim Petition in wake of their death, while Jagdish and Fatah Lal filed separate claim petitions for the bodily injuries suffered by them. All the four claim petitions registered as Claim Petitions No. 710/2016, 711/2016, 712/2016 & 713/2016 were consolidated and came to be disposed of by a common order dated 21.08.2017. 4. Following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal below :- 1 & vk;k fnuakd 31-05-2016 dks M+k;k M+se ds vkxs nsoyk eksM+ ij ih0,l0 tkojekbZUl esa vizkFkhZ la0 1 }kjk vizkFkhZ la0 1 vizkFkhZ la0 2 ds LokfeRo o vizkFkhZ la0 3 }kjk chfer okgu Vªd la0 vkj0ts027&th0ch0&1657 dks rstxfr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k gqbZ nq?kZVuk esa dqcsjyky o xksiky dh e`R;q gqbZ o Qrgyky rFkk txnh'k pksVxzLr gq;s\ 2 & vk;k chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZ dh vogsyuk gksus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZ chek daiuh {kfriwfrZ vnk;xh gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha gS\ 3 & vk;k izkFkhZx.k dksbZ izfrdj jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka] rks fdlls o fdruh\ 4 & lgk;rk\ 5. The learned Tribunal below has decided the issue No. 1 regarding involvement of the offending Truck against the appellant and has recorded a categorical finding that the said truck being driven rashly and negligently by the owner Sohan Lal Khatik was involved in the accident. 6. The learned Tribunal below has decided the issue No. 1 regarding involvement of the offending Truck against the appellant and has recorded a categorical finding that the said truck being driven rashly and negligently by the owner Sohan Lal Khatik was involved in the accident. 6. The other issues regarding quantum of compensation and violation of policy condition, were also decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal, vide its judgment and award, and following award came to be passed :- 48 & izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuki= /kkjk 166 eksVjokgu vf/kfu;e fo:) vizkFkhZx.k la;qDr o i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls fuEukuqlkj Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gSa fd& 49 & izkFkhZx.k Jherh ojnhckbZ vkfn] vizkFkhZx.k ls dqy 10]87]500 :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS ftl ij rkjh[k izkFkZuki= 06-07-2016 ls rkjh[k olwyh rd 8-50 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 50 & vizkFkhZx.k }kjk {kfriwfrZ o C;kt dh jkf'k tek djok;s tkus ij izkFkhZx.k Jherh ojnhckbZ vkfn dks fuEukuqlkj forj.k fd;k tk;sxk& dzekad Ukke cpr [kkrk esa ns; jkf'k lkof/k tek esa tek jkf'k o mldh vof/k 1 Jherh ojnhckbZ ifRu xksiky xesrh 1]00]000 :i;s o C;kt dh jkf'k 3]00]000 :i;s 3 o"kZ ds fy;s 3]00]000 :i;s 5 o"kZ ds fy;s 3]00]000 :i;s 10 o"kZ ds fy;s 2 xksiky xesrh firk 'kadjyky xesrh 87]500 & 51 & izkFkhZ Qrgyky] vizkFkhZx.k ls dqy 42]235 :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ftl ij izkFkhZ rkjh[k izkFkZuki= 06-07-2016 ls rkjh[k olwyh rd 8-50 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 52 & vizkFkhZx.k }kjk {kfriwfrZ o C;kt dh jkf'k tek djok;s tkus ij izkFkhZ Qrgyky ds uke fdlh jk"Vªh;d`r cSad esa cpr [kkrk esa tek djokbZ tkosA 53 & izkFkhZ txnh'k] vizkFkhZx.k ls dqy 14-735 :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ftl ij rkjh[k izkFkZuki= 06-07-2016 ls rkjh[k olwyh rd 8-50 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 54 & vizkFkhZx.k }kjk {kfriwfrZ o C;kt dh jkf'k tek djok;s tkus ij izkFkhZ txnh'k ds uke fdlh jk"Vªh;d`r cSad esa cpr [kkrk esa tek djokbZ tkosA 55 & izkFkhZ;k Jherh ekudh] vizkFkhZx.k ls dqy 9]95]000 :i;s izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS ftl ij rkjh[k izkFkZuki= 06-07-2016 ls rkjh[k olwyh rd 8-50 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA 56 & vizkFkhZx.k }kjk {kfriwfrZ o C;kt dh jkf'k tek djok;s tkus ij izkFkhZx.k Jherh ekudh mQZ ekaxhckbZ dks fuEukuqlkj forj.k fd; tk;sxkA dzekad Ukke cpr [kkrk esa ns; jkf'k lkof/k tek esa tek jkf'k o mldh vof/k 1 Jherh ekudh mQZ ekaxh ckbZ ifRu ukjk;.k mQZ uk: xesrh 1]45]000 :i;s o C;kt dh jkf'k 3]00]000 :i;s 3 o"kZ ds fy;s 3]00]000 :i;s 5 o"kZ ds fy;s 2]50]000 :i;s 10 o"kZ ds fy;s ^^57 & izkFkhZ;k Jherh ojnhckbZ o Jherh ekudh ckbZ ekaxhckbZ ds uke ls tke lkof/k tekvksa dk =Sekfld C;kt tfj;s cpr [kkrk izkFkhZx.k dks ns; gksxkA mDr leLr lkof/k tekvksa ij dksbZ yksu vFkok vof/k iwoZ Hkqxrku bl vf/kdj.k dh vuqefr ds fcuk ns; ugh gksxkA mDrkuqlkj jkf'k;ksa ds vnkrk [kkrk ds pSd izkFkhZx.k ds uke ls lanRr djrs gq;s vizkFkhZ la0 2 chek daiuh] rhl fnuksa ds Hkhrj bl vf/kdj.k esa tek djkosA^^ 7. Assailing the award as passed by the Tribunal below Mr. T.R.S. Sodha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company contended that it is a case of false implication of the Truck bearing Registration No. RJ 27 GB 1657. In support of this argument, Mr. Sodha, argued that the accident took place on 31.05.2016, whereas one Chaman Lal filed an FIR on 01.06.2016, whereas the Truck in question was seized by the police authorities as late as after 27 days. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company contended that at the time of filing the FIR; the Registration number of the Truck was disclosed by the informant, rather it was stated that an unknown vehicle had hit the Motor Cycles, which version shows that the claimants were aware of the particulars of Truck. The Claimants having connived/colluded with the respondent No. 3 - owner of the vehicle later embroiled the Truck and its driver - owner, contended Mr. Sodha. 8. He also submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is also on a higher side, for which, the award under consideration deserves to be set aside, because while determining the annual income of the deceased the Tribunal below has reckoned the same at Rs. 90,000/- per annum, which is on the higher side and the same cannot be more than 70,000/-to 72,000/- per annum. 9. Per-contra, Mr. A.K. Babel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants submitted that the argument advanced on behalf of appellant-Insurance Company that the Truck in question has been falsely implicated is per se untenable and liable to be repelled. He contended that it is true that at the time of filing the FIR i.e. on 01.06.2016, the informant Chaman Lal did disclose the Registration number of the Truck, but the said fact is sufficient to substantiate the arguments of Mr. Sodha that the Truck has been wrongly involved. 10. Learned counsel further contended that while lodging the FIR the informer Chaman Lal had clearly stated that he has received the information telephonically about the said accident and while filing the FIR he was aware of the Registration number of the Truck. Sodha that the Truck has been wrongly involved. 10. Learned counsel further contended that while lodging the FIR the informer Chaman Lal had clearly stated that he has received the information telephonically about the said accident and while filing the FIR he was aware of the Registration number of the Truck. But, soon after the accident on 08.06.2016, the police recorded the statement of the injured namely Fatah Lal and Jagdish who in no ambiguous terms had stated that the Truck bearing Registration No. 27 GB 1657 caused the accident by hitting their Motor-cycles from front. 11. While reading the statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Mr. Babel, contended that on the first available occasion the police was informed about the Registration, number of the vehicle, and based on such information, police commenced investigation/search and the Truck was ultimately apprehended on 27.05.2016. 12. Bringing to fore these facts, Mr. Babel, contended that in such an accident when two persons have died and other two being pillion riders of the Motor-cycle have been injured, it is normal phenomenon that persons take to 7-8 days to gain their normal frame of mind to retrieve the Registration number of the vehicle. 13. In relation to quantum of the award Mr. Babel, contended that it is rather on a lower side. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 15. In considered opinion of this Court, the contention on behalf of the Insurance Company about roping in of the vehicle in question is based on surmises and edified solely on the fact that the Truck in question was seized after 27 days of the accident and that at the time of filing the FIR, the Registration number of the Truck was mentioned. 16. It is to be noticed that the FIR had been lodged by a third person, on the basis of telephonic information and that too by the person concerned or the eye witness. In such a situation the informant may or may have knowledge of the Registration number of such offending vehicle. Such informer, who is unconnected with the victims, may well withhold such information so as to avoid animosity with the offender. 17. In such a situation the informant may or may have knowledge of the Registration number of such offending vehicle. Such informer, who is unconnected with the victims, may well withhold such information so as to avoid animosity with the offender. 17. It is also a matter of record that the claimants and injured persons had revealed the Registration number of the Truck at the first opportunity available to them, namely when their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. 18. It is also relevant to note that the Insurance Company has failed to prove their version or demolish the stand of the claimants by way of cross-examination or otherwise, when the injured Fatah Lal and Jagdish appeared in the witness box. 19. On the basis of material and evidence available on record, learned Tribunal has committed no error of law in holding that the Truck bearing Registration No. 27. G.B.-1657 was involved in the accident. 20. Adverting to the argument about the quantum of the amount awarded, particularly in connection with Civil Misc. Cases No. 710/2016 and 713/2016, relating to death of Gopal and Kuber Lal, this Court is of the view that may be the annual income assessed by the Tribunal is a bit higher, looking to the minimum wages prevalent, nevertheless, the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 15 in Civil Misc. Claim No. 710/2016, for Gopal, who was 22 years of age and in Civil Misc. Case No. 713/2016, the Tribunal below had applied the multiplier of 14 for Kuber Lal, who was about 35 years old at the time of the accident. Such multipliers, in light of the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of "National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi" ought to have been 18 and 16 respectively. 21. The overall compensation, if assessed, while applying the correct multiplier as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pranay Sethi Judgment, the amount of award is just and proper. 22. Hence, this Court does not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award dated 21.08.2017. 23. The appeals therefore fail.