JUDGMENT : Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. 1. The Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal challenging an award dated December 10, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, District Purba Medinipur in Motor Accident Claim case No. 19 of 2013 (Motor Accident claim case No. 19 of 2013) whereby an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed thereby directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 11,54,500/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the application till the date of recovery. 2. The case as made out in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is that on January 24, 2013 when the victim was proceeding with normal speed on his motor cycle along Haldia Mecheda road and reached near Manjushri More, the offending truck coming with excessive speed dashed the motor cycle from behind with a great force; as a result of which the victim sustained severe injuries and was taken to Haldia S.D. Hospital when the Doctor at the said hospital declared him dead. It was alleged in the claim petition that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The victim was a supervisor of a construction company and used to earn Rs. 8,000/- per month. At the time of his death, the victim was aged about 28 years. 3. The owner who was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 1 in the claim petition did not contest the said proceeding. 4. The Insurance Company was impleaded as the Opposite Party No. 2 in the said proceeding and contested the same by filing written objection denying that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was contended therein that the incident took place due to carelessness of the victim and as such neither the owner of the offending vehicle nor the Insurance Company is liable to pay any compensation. 5. Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidences available on record held that the annual income of the victim at the time of his death was Rs. 96,000/-. 5. Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidences available on record held that the annual income of the victim at the time of his death was Rs. 96,000/-. The Learned Judge further held that the loss of income will be Rs. 64,000/- and after applying the multiplier 18 arrived at the compensation of Rs. 11,52,000/-. After adding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- on account of funeral expenses, the learned Judge arrived at the total compensation amount of Rs. 11,54,500/-. 6. Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company attacked the impugned award on two fold grounds: Firstly that the learned Judge of the Tribunal applied the wrong multiplier in the instant case while arriving at the amount of compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company and; Secondly the non-involvement of the offending vehicle due to delayed lodging of F.I.R. 7. Mr. Das submitted that the accident took place on 24.1.2013 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.1.2013. As such, there is delay in lodging F.I.R. with regard to the said accident and the learned Judge erred in law by not holding that the offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident. By placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported at (2017) 16 SCC page 680 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shethi and Ors.), Mr. Das submitted that since the victim was aged about 28 years at the time of his death the learned Judge ought to have applied the multiplier 17 in the instant case. 8. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party in his usual fairness, did not dispute the submission of Mr. Das that the multiplier 17 is to be applied in the instant case and not 18 as the Learned Judge of the Tribunal has held. The learned advocate for the Opposite Party further submitted that there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R. since the accident took place on 24.1.2013 and the F.I.R. was lodged immediately thereafter on 26th January, 2013. He also submitted that the claimants have proved by adducing evidence that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. In so far as the submission of Mr. He also submitted that the claimants have proved by adducing evidence that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. In so far as the submission of Mr. Das with regard to delayed F.I.R. is concerned, we find that one Swapan Chakraborty lodged the complaint on January 26, 2013 i.e. within two days of the accident which took place on January 24, 2013. The said delay is not a substantial one which will lead to an inference that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. Furthermore, it is well settled in the decision reported at 2011 AIR SCW 1530 (Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Ors.) that delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Paragraphs 20 & 21 of the said reported judgment is quoted herein below: "Paragraph 20: It is well-settled that delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to F.I.R.st rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the F.I.R. with the Police. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the F.I.R. should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R., the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground." "Paragraph 21: The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons". 10. Thus we find no substance in the submission of Mr. Das that the claim petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay in lodging F.I.R. 11. It appears from the materials available on record that upon lodging of the F.I.R. on January 26, 2013 the criminal case was started and charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck under Section 279/304A/427 of Indian Penal Code. The eye witness adduced evidence as PW2 and the Insurance Company failed to bring out anything by cross-examining the said witness. From the enquiry report and the post Mortem report it is evident that the victim died due to the accident which was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 12. It further appears from the record that the victim was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident which resulted in his death. It has been held in paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Pranay Shethi (supra) that in case the age of the victim is between 26 to 30 years, the multiplier to be applied is 17. Paragraph 44 of the said reported decision the quoted below: "Paragraph 44: As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in Paragraph 19 of Sarala verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. Paragraph 44 of the said reported decision the quoted below: "Paragraph 44: As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in Paragraph 19 of Sarala verma read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, paragraph 42 is extracted below: We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susama 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." 13. Thus, we find substance in the submission of Mr. Das that the learned Judge of the court below applied a wrong multiplier in the instant case and we hold that the multiplier 17 is to be applied in the instant case. 14. Since the learned Judge arrived at the total compensation amount by applying the wrong multiplier of 18, impugned judgment is required to be modified. The total compensation amount will be Rs. 64,000/- x 17 = 10, 88,000/- and the impugned order is modified to that extent only. After adding a sum of Rs. 2,500/- on account of funeral expenses, the total compensation amount will be Rs. 10,90,500/-. 15. In course of hearing of the instant appeal it was submitted by Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company that the entire amount awarded by the learned court below together with interest has already been deposited with the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta. The claimants are given liberty to file an application before the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta praying for release of the amount which the claimants are entitled to in terms of this judgment. The claimants are given liberty to file an application before the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta praying for release of the amount which the claimants are entitled to in terms of this judgment. Upon such application being made, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants in terms of this judgment and in the proportion as indicated in the award dated December 10, 2015. The said amount is to be released by the Registrar General, in favour of claimants with a period of fortnight from the date of this judgment and upon verifying the identity of the respective claimants. Such payment is to be made by account payee cheques drawn in the name of the respective claimants and the said cheques are to be encashed through the bank accounts standing in the individual names of the claimants. The Registrar General shall refund the balance amount to the Insurance Company, if any, after releasing the amount, as aforesaid, in favour of the claimants. In case it is found that the Insurance Company is liable to pay any further sum to the claimants in terms of this judgment, the Insurance Company shall remit the same to the bank accounts standing in the individual names of the claimants through Electronic means within a period of fortnight from the date of furnishing the particulars of the bank accounts by the claimants to the Insurance Company. 16. The instant appeal is accordingly allowed and as such the connected application has become infructuous and the same are therefore dismissed. 17. There shall be no order as to cost. 18. The certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. Harish Tandon, J. : I agree.