JUDGMENT : Ritu Tagore, J. This is Insurance Company’s appeal against the award dated 08.10.2018, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, granting compensation of Rs.9,66,064/- to the claimants along with 7.5% interest. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as their status before the learned Tribunal. 3. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under :- That on 07.09.2017, deceased Nitesh was returning to his village Sunped, on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-29-AJ-1122 and his uncle Haribhan Singh was following the deceased, on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-29-AL-5350. At about 7.30 p.m., near tubewell of Ex. Sarpanch Niranjan of village Sagarpur, P.S. Sadar, Ballabhgarh, the offending Tractor bearing registration No.HR-27C-5869, driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite side and hit the motorcycle of deceased Nitesh. As a result, the deceased fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Haribhan Singh, his uncle took the deceased to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad and got conducted his postmortem. 4. FIR No.428 dated 08.09.2017 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, 1860 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Ballabhgarh against the respondent No.1, on the statement of Haribhan Singh. 5. The LRs of deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pleading deceased was aged 17 years, well built and an energetic individual. Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was sought for untimely death of the deceased. 6. When put to notice, respondents (driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle) appeared and filed their respective replies. Respondents denied the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Additionally, Insurance Company pleaded that respondent No.1 had no valid and effective DL at the time of the accident and vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and deceased, too, had no driving licence to drive the vehicle. Therefore, accident took place due to the fault of the deceased, resulting in his death. Allegation of institution of a false case in collusion with the police was raised to oppose the grant of compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of petition was made. 7. Learned Tribunal from the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident which took place on 07.09.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. near tubewell of Ex. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of petition was made. 7. Learned Tribunal from the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident which took place on 07.09.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. near tubewell of Ex. Sarpanch Niranjan of village Sagarpur resulting the death of Nitesh due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration No.HR-27C-5869 being driven by the respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1, is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form? OPR. 4. Whether the respondent was not holding a valid or effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident or that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance company? OPR 5. Relief 8. The parties presented the evidence as detailed in the impugned award. Learned Tribunal after assessment of evidence, concluded that respondent No.1 caused the accident while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting into the death of deceased and awarded compensation as mentioned above. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal erred in law while returning findings on issue No.1. Learned counsel stated that learned Tribunal failed to notice that offending vehicle was involved after a delay of 09 days of the accident with no plausible explanation as to how Haribhan Singh (PW-3) came to know of the vehicle, particularly when on the next date of accident on 08.09.2017, he reported to the police that unknown vehicle caused the accident, and due to darkness, he could not note down the registration number of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that statement of Haribhan Singh (PW-3) is not worthy of reliance as he admitted that, he reached at the spot after five minutes, this shows that he did not see the accident. The learned counsel stated that onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimant and has to discharge before the Tribunal. In present case, claimants led no cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate their version. On the other hand, owner and driver appeared as RW-1 and RW-2, denied the accident and their involvement. The learned counsel stated that onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimant and has to discharge before the Tribunal. In present case, claimants led no cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate their version. On the other hand, owner and driver appeared as RW-1 and RW-2, denied the accident and their involvement. It is urged the facts reveal that offending vehicle was falsely involved in the accident. In support of his plea, reliance is placed on ’Ram Karan vs. Zile Singh’ 2001 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 582. 11. Learned counsel further stated that learned Tribunal failed to note that deceased had no licence to drive the vehicle. This shows that he was at fault in causing the accident, leading to his death. Learned counsel urged that findings on issue No.1 should be set aside. In alternate, learned counsel submitted that it was a case of head on collision, suggesting at least a case of contributory negligence and learned Tribunal failed to note this aspect. 12. Learned counsel further urged that learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd income towards personal expenses of the deceased, who was admittedly a bachelor. In circumstances, as per ratio laid down in ’Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’ 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 77, one half (1/2) income should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. A prayer is thus made to re-assess the compensation. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there is no merit in the appeal. Learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and found respondent No.1 solely responsible for causing the accident while driving the offending vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.1 is admittedly facing trial, prima facie suggesting his negligence in causing the accident. It is stated that learned Tribunal has rightly granted compensation. A prayer is made to dismiss the appeal. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and the paper book with their valuable assistance. 15. The eyewitness, Haribhan Singh (PW-3), testified that accident was caused by respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle. He deposed it was a head on collision and respondent No.1 came from opposite side, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, ultimately hit the motorcycle of the deceased. 15. The eyewitness, Haribhan Singh (PW-3), testified that accident was caused by respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle. He deposed it was a head on collision and respondent No.1 came from opposite side, driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, ultimately hit the motorcycle of the deceased. He stated that despite it was getting dark, he saw the driver and asserted his ability to identify the driver, who fled from the spot. He denied his absence from the spot, rather affirmed that he arrived within five minutes at the spot. Harping upon the statement of the witness that he arrived at spot within five minutes, it was submiited that he (PW-3) did not see the accident. The aforesaid contention is without force as it is the case of claimants that Haribhan Singh (PW-3) was following the deceased. The offending vehicle came from opposite side and caused the accident. So this witness had all the opportunity and occasion to see the accident and the respondent No.1/driver. Further, he also mentioned that driver of the offending vehicle briefly stopped before fleeing from the spot. He also stated that despite being in shock and not in clear state of mind, he had noticed the registration number of the offending vehicle. He stated that he came to know about the number of the vehicle on the next day. His self explanatory statement reveals that he had seen the number of the offending vehicle at the spot but due to his disturbed state of mind, he could not remember the vehicle number, however, after verifying the number of offending vehicle, disclosed the same to the police. The aforesaid statement of the witness does not suggest that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. His overall statement appears natural, inspiring and creditworthy. Further, no enmity has been suggested by the respondents to this witness as a reason for him to falsely implicate the driver. Furthermore, a family of deceased would not involve an innocent person and leave a real offender to go scot free. 16. Furthermore, police on the complaint of Haribhan Singh (PW-3), investigated the matter and filed the Challan against the respondent No.1/driver, for causing the accident. The respondent No.1/driver (RW-2) admits, he is facing trial and made no complaint before any higher authorities regarding his alleged implication in the case. It is a circumstance suggesting his involvement in the accident. 16. Furthermore, police on the complaint of Haribhan Singh (PW-3), investigated the matter and filed the Challan against the respondent No.1/driver, for causing the accident. The respondent No.1/driver (RW-2) admits, he is facing trial and made no complaint before any higher authorities regarding his alleged implication in the case. It is a circumstance suggesting his involvement in the accident. On the contrary, no evidence of any collusion between claimants and police is brought on record to suggest a false case was foisted on the driver. All these facts and circumstances give support to version of Haribhan Singh (PW-3). 17. Sanjeet Singh (PW-2), father of the deceased admitted that deceased had no regular licence. However, claimed that deceased had a learner’s licence to drive the vehicle, but failed to place the same on record. Nonetheless, this omission by itself does not establish that deceased was responsible for causing the accident. In fact, no evidence has been presented by the respondents to establish that deceased was solely responsible or contributed in any manner in causing the accident. 18. On assessment of entire evidence, it is made out that respondent No.1/driver had caused the accident. No interference is required to be made in the findings returned by learned Tribunal on issue No.1. 19. The finding of learned Tribunal with respect to age of the deceased at 17 years, at the time of his death has remained unchallenged. Learned Tribunal determined the notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. To my mind, keeping in view the age of the deceased and value of rupee in the relevant year, do not seem on the higher side and requires no intervention, same is taken as such. However, learned Tribunal erred in making deduction of 1/3rd income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor and in life time of his father, other siblings and father cannot be taken as dependent upon the deceased. Further, it is not the case of the claimants that father was dependent upon the deceased son. Furthermore, determination of multiplier on the average age of the parents by learned Tribunal is incorrect. The multiplier need to be selected on the basis of the age of deceased/victim. Further, it is not the case of the claimants that father was dependent upon the deceased son. Furthermore, determination of multiplier on the average age of the parents by learned Tribunal is incorrect. The multiplier need to be selected on the basis of the age of deceased/victim. The assessment of loss of dependency and grant of conventional heads is not as per the guidelines laid down in ‘National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others’ (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Accordingly, same is re-determined as under:- Reassessment of award amount Sr. No. Heads Income (in Rupees) 1. Notional Income (monthly) Rs.5,000/- 2. Future prospects 40% in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) (Rs.5,000+Rs.2,000) Rs.7,000/- 3. Deduction ½ being unmarried Rs.3,500/- 4. Multiplier 18 5. Total loss of dependency (Rs.3,500 x 12 x 18) Rs.7,56,000/- 6. Loss of estate(10% increase in every three years in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) Rs.18,000/- 7. Loss of funeral expenses(10% increase in every three years in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) Rs.18,000/- 8. Loss of consortium x 4 claimants (10% increase in every three years in view of Pranay Sethi (supra) Rs.1,92,000/-(48,000 x 4) 9. Total Rs.9,84,000/- 20. Since difference in enhanced amount is Rs.17,936/-, which is less than 5% and that no cross appeal or cross objections have been filed by claimants, no case of interference is made out in view of observations made in ‘Reliance New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinish Jain and others’ 2018(3) SCC 619 . 21. No other point was raised or pressed. 22. Accordingly, appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 23. No order as to cost. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.