JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. Heard Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shivansh Agarwal alongwith Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 on caveat. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved against the award dated 09.06.2023 passed in Claim Petition No.160 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal South, Lucknow wherein a death case the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.38,49,454.20 alongwith 7% interest in favour of the claimant-respondents No. 1 to 5. 3. Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award is being challenged solely on the ground of quantum. It is urged that the Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 50 years whereas the documentary evidence filed by the claimants established that the deceased was 52 years of age and this would materially affect the quantum as the multiplier of 11 was applicable whereas the Tribunal has adopted a multiplier of 13. 4. It is further urged that the quantum has been affected also for the reason that the Tribunal has taken 25% towards future prospects whereas since the deceased was in permanent employment and considering his age he was entitled for future prospects at the rate of 10%. It is in this backdrop that there is a material change in the quantum which has been ignored by the Tribunal, hence the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the caveator claimants submits that the deceased was 52 years of age but in the post mortem report the age of the deceased was ascertained as 50 years, accordingly the age of 50 was taken upon which 25% was taken as future prospects and therefore the amount as awarded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error. Since the Insurance Company has challenged the quantum only and it is the endeavour of the Tribunal to ascertain a fair and a just compensation, accordingly in this view of the matter the award does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 6. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Since the only issue in contest between the parties is the quantum, accordingly with the consent of the parties the Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself and the appeal is being disposed of accordingly. 7. In order to appreciate the respective contentions. Briefly the facts giving rise to the appeal may be noticed. The claimants, who are the respondents No. 1 to 5 before this Court, filed Claim Petition No. 160 of 2019 with the averments that on 03.02.2019 at around 2.30 P.M. Jai Mangal Sha and Manish Kumar were travelling on motorcycle bearing number UP 32/FE 4531 and were returning home from Queen Marry Hospital at Lucknow. While they had reached Bangla Bazar at the relevant time a DCM truck bearing number UP 53/T-3428 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle as a result both Jai Mangal Sha and Manish Kumar received grievous injuries and unfortunately during the course of the medical treatment Jai Mangal Sha expired. 8. The claim petition came to be contested by the owner of the DCM truck as well as by the Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle clearly stated that the vehicle was being driven in a safe manner. It also pleaded that the driver had a valid and a subsisting licence and the vehicle was also insured for the period 19.05.2018 till 18.05.2019 and as such on the date of the accident the vehicle was insured. 9. As far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they had raised a general defence that unless and until it is established that the vehicle was being driven in accordance with the policy condition, the Insurance Company would not be liable. On the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed five issues. Noticing oral as well as documentary evidence the Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the DCM truck bearing number UP 53/T-3428. It also found that it was the truck driver who was negligent and there was no fault of the deceased and Manish Kumar who were travelling on the motorcycle. 10. Noticing oral as well as documentary evidence the Tribunal concluded that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the DCM truck bearing number UP 53/T-3428. It also found that it was the truck driver who was negligent and there was no fault of the deceased and Manish Kumar who were travelling on the motorcycle. 10. Considering the statement of the witnesses, documentary evidence including the First Information Report, insurance policy and the valid driving licence of the DCM truck driver, namely, Suresh Tiwari, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants were entitled to compensation which was payable by the Insurance Company as the truck was being driven in accordance with the policy condition and thereafter it went on to calculate the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.38,49,454.20 alongwith 7% interest . It is this award dated 09.06.2023 which is under challenge before this Court. 11. The only issue which requires consideration is whether the Tribunal has appropriately calculated the compensation. It will also be relevant to notice that the appellant has neither challenged any other findings regarding the involvement of the vehicle, the truck being driven rashly and negligently as well as the finding that the driver had a valid licence and the vehicle was duly insured, thus they are not being discussed and would attain finality. 12. The major concern of the counsel for the appellant is that the claimants themselves had filed various documents in shape of PAN Card, driving licence of the deceased which clearly indicated his date of birth was 02.07.1966 and as such in light thereof his age at the time of accident would be 52 years of age. It is submitted that once these documents were available and admitted to the claimants who also in the claim petition stated that the deceased was 52 years of age, in such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 50 years, merely on the basis of the age as mentioned in the post mortem report. 13. Having considered the aforesaid aspect, the record would indicate that the appellant filed the list of documents which were submitted by the claimants before the Tribunal which also includes the PAN Card as well as driving licence of the deceased and in both the said documents, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 02.07.1966. 13. Having considered the aforesaid aspect, the record would indicate that the appellant filed the list of documents which were submitted by the claimants before the Tribunal which also includes the PAN Card as well as driving licence of the deceased and in both the said documents, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 02.07.1966. It will also be relevant to notice that the deceased was an educated man and possessed a PAN Card as well as a driving licence wherein his age was indicated and according to it, he would be 52 years of age at the time of the accident. 14. In light of the aforesaid and the document filed by the claimants themselves, this Court finds that the age of the deceased was 52 years and the Tribunal ought not to have taken the age as 50 years on the basis of the post mortem report also for the reason that it was not as if any ossification test was done, rather the age was recorded in the post mortem report as informed by the person who had sent the body for examination. Thus, where authentic documents in shape of PAN Card and driving licence was available and the claimants themselves stated the age of the deceased as 52, they should have been preferred to the age as mentioned in the post mortem report, accordingly this Court finds that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant has substance and the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 52 years. 15. Having noticed the aforesaid, it would be relevant to notice that at the age of 52 years, the multiplier as applicable would be 11 and not 13 as adopted by the Tribunal. So much so that this would even affect the future prospects and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Comapany Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC page 680, the appropriate factor for calculating the future prospects would be 10% interest and not 25% as taken by the Tribunal. 16. So much so that this would even affect the future prospects and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Comapany Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC page 680, the appropriate factor for calculating the future prospects would be 10% interest and not 25% as taken by the Tribunal. 16. Apparently, there is no dispute to the fact that the deceased was survived by his wife, two daughters and two sons, thus taking note of the fact that one daughter was unmarried and the sons were also unmarried and were of young age and there being no evidence on record to indicate that they were not depending of the deceased, accordingly noticing the number of dependents, one fourth is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The consortium which is payable is both to the wife for spouse consortium and to the four children for loss of parental consortium and thereafter adding for the funeral expenses and loss of estate. The amount as payable to the claimants is being calculated as under:- Income Rs. 25,295/- per month (rounded) Future Prospect @ 10% Rs. 2529 per month Net income Rs. 27,824 per month Income after deduction of 1/4rd [27824 - Rs. 6956 per month 20,868 Age 52 Multiplier 11 Thus, compensation payable Rs. 20,868x12x11=27,54,576 Parental consortium for respondents No. 1 to 3 (40,000X3) Rs. 1,20,000/- Spouse consortium respondent No. 5 Rs. 40,000/- Filial consortium No. 4 Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15000 Funeral expenses Rs. 15000 Total 29,84,576/- Thus, total compensation payable shall be Rs. 27,54,576 + 2,30,000 = 29,84,576/- 17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear opinion that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the quantum and as such the claimant respondents No. 1 to 4 shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 29,84,576/- as determined by this Court as fair, just and proper compensation. 18. To the aforesaid extent the award dated 09.06.2023 passed in Claim Petition No. 160 of 2019 shall stand modified. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant-respondents No. 1 to 5 shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 29,84,576/- as determined above alongwith the 7% interest from the date of application till date of payment which shall be distributed among the claimants as provided by the Tribunal. 19. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant-respondents No. 1 to 5 shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 29,84,576/- as determined above alongwith the 7% interest from the date of application till date of payment which shall be distributed among the claimants as provided by the Tribunal. 19. The amount has deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimant-respondents and the remaining amount or any short fall shall also be paid by the appellant to the claimant-respondents within a period of 60 days from the date, a copy of this order is placed before the Court concerned. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid term. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith.