JUDGMENT Vipin Chandra Dixit, J. Heard Sri. Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Satya Deo Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-respondent nos.1 to 4. No one is present on behalf of owner-respondent no. 5. 2. This FAFO has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 22.3.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Muzaffarnagar in MACP No.230 of 2015 (Smt. Vimlesh and others v. Om Kumar Tyagi), by which compensation of Rs. 6,22,500/- alongwith 7% annual simple interest has been awarded in favour of claimants on account of death of Daya Ram aged 40 years who died in road accident. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that claimants had failed to prove the factum of accident as well as involvement of insured vehicle in the accident. It is further submitted that FIR was lodged by the claimants after nine months of the accident. Neither postmortem nor panchayatnama of the deceased was conducted and the cause of death could not be ascertained. It is further submitted that the age of the deceased was accepted as 40 years by the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding 50% future prospects, whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017(4) T.A.C. 673 has provided 40% future prospects for the age below 40 years, if the deceased was not in a permanent job. Lastly, it is submitted that three claimants are minors and Tribunal has deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses accepting four dependents. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for claimants-respondents submits that the claimants had fully proved the involvement of insured car in the accident as well as rash and negligence of car driver. The FIR was lodged against the driver of the car and claimants had produced one eye witness Ram Awatar who appeared as P.W.2 and has also stated on oath that the car was being driven rashly and negligently and the car hit the motorcycle of deceased. The deceased was admitted in the hospital of Muzaffarnagar. The FIR was lodged against the driver of the car and claimants had produced one eye witness Ram Awatar who appeared as P.W.2 and has also stated on oath that the car was being driven rashly and negligently and the car hit the motorcycle of deceased. The deceased was admitted in the hospital of Muzaffarnagar. It is further submitted that there are four dependents on the income of the deceased and Claims Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th according to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation reported in 2009(2) TAC 677 (S.C.). It is further submitted that only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards love and affection and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is also on lower side. 5. Considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The record shows that the first information report was lodged against insured car and the Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the driver of insured car. The claimants had produced Ram Awatar as P.W.2 who had also proved the factum as well as rash and negligent driving of the car driver. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties in rebuttal. The finding recorded by Claims Tribunal in respect of negligence of car driver is based on evidence and materials, which are available on record, and there is no illegality in any manner. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was 'Raj Mistri' having income of Rs. 14000/- per month but the Claims Tribunal has accepted notional income of Rs. 100/- per day and non-pecuniary damages was also awarded on lower side. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. No ground of interference is made out. 7. The First Appeal From Order being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.