JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shesh Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 18.02.2011 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Additional District Judge, Court no. 1, Basti in MACP No. 105 of 2006 in which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,66,940/- as compensation along with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that an accident took place on 22.05.2006 at 10:30 PM, deceased Bhaagwat Prasad Dubey with other employees of his department was in the Jeep and was coming after attending a marriage function to Basti. In village Bankata near railway crossing when the driver of the Jeep U.P.-51H/1300 driving the Jeep rashly and negligently tried to overtake the tractor trolly, the right portion of the Jeep dashed with trolly and because of that the Jeep got uncontrolled and overturned in a pit. The person in the Jeep sustained injures and 4 of them died on the spot including Shri Bhaagwat Prasad Dubey. The Information was given by the owner of the Jeep to shift his responsibility on the tractor trolly stating the tractor trolly is responsible for the accident and on the basis of the written report, Crime No. 806 / 06 under sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC was registered for the accident. The driver of the Jeep was completely responsible who was driving the Jeep very rashly and in a very dangerous way resulting in accident. At the time of accident deceased Bhaagwat Prasad Dubey was 38 years in age and he was Class-IV employee in Rajkiya Nalkoop Vibhag and his monthly income was Rs. 6342/-. Therefore this claim petition was filed by his wife and minor daughter and sons. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement and denied that Bhaagwat Prasad Dubey was traveling in the alleged offending Jeep. He has admitted that deceased was Class-IV employee in the Irrigation Department. He has further stated that he had purchased the Jeep and on the day of incident he had gone to Shri Narsingh Pandey of his department in a marriage function and he was returning in the night by Jeep. He has admitted that deceased was Class-IV employee in the Irrigation Department. He has further stated that he had purchased the Jeep and on the day of incident he had gone to Shri Narsingh Pandey of his department in a marriage function and he was returning in the night by Jeep. Ahead him, the Executive Engineer Shri Sohan Ram was also going in a Jeep with certain employees. The Jeep got trapped in the tractor trolly and overturned on the road side, therefore, certain persons sustained injuries and some persons died. The leg of the Executive Engineer was also broken. The offending Jeep was departmental and therefore, the Executive Engineer put pressure on him for lodging the F.I.R. as he was coming from his Jeep behind the Jeep. He also sustained injuries and got fainted and was admitted to District Hospital. The Jeep was insured with National Insurance Company and the driver Hari Prakash Pandey was having a valid license. If the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the accident took place by his Jeep, the responsibility to pay compensation is on the National Insurance Company. 5. The National Insurance Company also filed a written statement and it has been alleged that in view of FIR, the accident took place because of rashness and negligence of by tractor trolly and therefore, claim is not maintainable against the Insurance company. The owner of the tractor trolly has not been made party. There is nothing against the driver of the Jeep and on the basis of false allegation the claim has been filed. The driver was not having valid license and the Jeep was being driven in violation of the Insurance policy, the tractor trolly was not insured and was driving illegally. The responsibility to pay compensation is on tractor owner and the claim petition is not maintainable. 6. The learned tribunal framed four issues, the English translation is as follows: 1. The driver was not having valid license and the Jeep was being driven in violation of the Insurance policy, the tractor trolly was not insured and was driving illegally. The responsibility to pay compensation is on tractor owner and the claim petition is not maintainable. 6. The learned tribunal framed four issues, the English translation is as follows: 1. Whether on 22.05.2006, at night 10:30 p.m. near Bankata Railway Crossing under P.S. Kotwali, District Basti, Bhaagwat Prasad Dubey was coming in Jeep No. U.P.-51H/1300 to Basti, while crossing the railway crossing, the driver of the Jeep, in order to overtake, crossed the Jeep very rashly and negligently and right side of jeep dashed with tractor trolly, Jeep got overturned in a pit and Bhaagwat Prasad Dubey sustained injuries and he died on the spot and Whether accident occurred due to only negligence of tractor driver or accident occurred due to composite negligence of Jeep driver and tractor driver? 2. Whether at the time of accident Jeep was validly and effectively insured with opposite party no. 2 Insurance Company? 3. Whether on the date of accident driver of the Jeep was having valid and effective driving license? 4. Whether the claimants are entitled for any relief, if yes, then how much and from whom? 7. In support of the claim petition PW-1 Smt. Subhawati Devi (claimant), PW-2 Ram Pher, PW-3 Gulab Chandra have been examined and the police papers such as FR, F.I.R., site map, postmortem report, insurance papers and driving license have been filed. In addition to it, the claimant has also filed the salary certificate of the deceased. The defendant side has not given any evidence. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both the sides and perusing the record, has delivered the impugned judgment and award. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, this appeal has been filed on the ground that no FIR was lodged against the said Jeep and its driver and the report was lodged against tractor trolly and the police submitted final report as the tractor trolly was not traceable in absence of its number. Other argument is in respect of income and use of multiplier. 9. Pw-1 Subhawati Devi is claimant who has supported the allegations of petition but she has admitted that she had not seen the accident taking place. Other argument is in respect of income and use of multiplier. 9. Pw-1 Subhawati Devi is claimant who has supported the allegations of petition but she has admitted that she had not seen the accident taking place. PW-3 Gulab Chandra is the eye witness of the accident and he has narrated how the accident took place and the driver of the Jeep was driving the Jeep rashly and negligently and by overtaking dashed the tractor trolly going to the wrong side due to which the accident took place. No evidence for rebuttal was given from the side of the defendants. The claim petition further finds support by the police papers as mentioned above. 10. The learned tribunal found on the basis of the evidence on record that the driver of the offending Jeep at the time of accident was driving the Jeep very rashly and negligently and the right portion of the Jeep was dashed to the tractor trolly and the Jeep got overturned and several persons in the Jeep sustained injuries and four persons died including the husband of the claimant. So for as the fact that FIR was lodged against tractor trolly against which the police submitted final report, the learned trial court found on evidence that the eyewitness proved that the rashness and negligence of the driver of the said Jeep was established on the basis of eyewitness account and moreover, the owner of the said Jeep has admitted in his written statement that under pressure he lodged FIR against tractor trolly and at that time he was not in healthy state of mind. No evidence in rebuttal and to prove negligence of other vehicle or composite negligence was given by the side of appellant. Therefore, it was rightly concluded by the learned tribunal that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending Jeep and in the accident the husband of the claimant sustained injuries and died. 11. So far as the insurance is concerned the same has not been denied. The driving license of the driver of the offending Jeep was also found to be valid on the date of accident. Therefore issue no. 2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the claimant and against the defendant. 12. 11. So far as the insurance is concerned the same has not been denied. The driving license of the driver of the offending Jeep was also found to be valid on the date of accident. Therefore issue no. 2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the claimant and against the defendant. 12. The amount of compensation has been calculated on the basis of salary which the deceased was earning at the time of accident. P.W.-2 Ram Pher, senior clerk of the department has been examined who has proved the salary statement of the deceased and has stated that after deduction, the deceased was getting Rs. 3812/- monthly. On the basis of this amount the compensation has been calculated. The learned tribunal has found the age of deceased to be between 38 to 40 years and he has applied a multiplier of 15. The submission of the learned counsel to the appellant is, in view of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., (2009) AIR SC 3104, in the age of 40 to 45 years instead of multiplier of 15, a multiplier of 14 will be applicable. 13. In Sarla Verma (Supra) case multiplier is from the age of 36 to 40 years is 15. The Supreme Court has laid down as below: "We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years." 14. It is clear from the above observation that in the age of 36 to 40 years, the available multiplier is 15 and not 14, as the learned Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased to be between 38 to 40. It is clear from the above observation that in the age of 36 to 40 years, the available multiplier is 15 and not 14, as the learned Tribunal has determined the age of the deceased to be between 38 to 40. The has been further affirmed on the point of multiplier system by the judgment in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) AIR SC 5157. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier in this instant case. 15. In Sarla Verma (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that a proceeding before the Tribunal is in the nature of inquiry in which a very few thing is required to be established. The Court observed: "Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased." 16. In my view, the learned Tribunal has discussed all above aspects as laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and has determined compensation on the basis of the net salaried income of the deceased by applying right multiplier. I do not find any perversity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and award. 17. In view of the above discussions, I find no force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. The appeal is dismissed. 19. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. 20. Stay if any shall stand vacated. Remit back the amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited by the appellant to the learned Tribunal to be adjusted against the awarded compensation.