ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.04.2018 passed in MACT No.275/2018 (CIS No.781/2017) by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.II, Udaipur, the appellant- Insurance Company is before this Court by way of this appeal seeking quashing of the same. 2. Brief facts first. On 03.05.2017, at around 7:30 a.m., Dinesh Kumar Meena since deceased and Shanti Lal were riding a motorcycle from Sepur to Parsad. When they reached Bhur Ghati (Chchani), Parsad, a Bolero vehicle bearing registration number GJ-1-HL-5251, being driven by Respondent No. 5-Firoz Khan(Driver) in a rash and negligent manner, collided with their motorcycle. As a result, Dinesh sustained fatal injuries and died, while Shanti Lal suffered grievous injuries. 2.1 FIR No. 88/2017 under Sections 279, 337 & 304 A of IPC was registered at Police Station Sarada and charge sheet was filed after investigation. Respondents No. 1-4 filed a claim case No.275/2018 before the Tribunal at Udaipur, seeking compensation for the death of Dinesh asserting that the deceased was 30 years old, was of sound mind and had good physique. He was working as a mason and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. 2.2 In Shanti Lal’s case it was claimed that he was aged 30 years old and was working as mason and was earning Rs.12000/- per month. He sustained fracture of femur and dislocation of clavicle bone. He (Shanti Lal) claimed compensation on account of injuries, physical pain and mental agony apart from financial loss. 2.3 Respondent No.5(Abhey Singh (Owner Of Bolero No Gj- 1-Hl-5251) admitted that was owner of the offending vehicle and that at the relevant time, respondent No.4(Firoz Khan ) was it’s driver. He, however, pleaded the negligence of the deceased Dinesh and petitioner Shanti Lal by not following the traffic rules. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid license, permit etc. and the breach of the terms of the policy. 2.3 The learned Tribunal framed following issues:- “(1) Whether on dated 03.05.2017 at about 7.30 a.m. while deceased who were riding on motorcycle and going from Sepur to Parsad, as soon as they reached at Bhur Ghati (Chchani) Parsaad, one Bolero no. GJ-1-HL 5251 being driven by its Driver i.e. R 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and thereby causing fatal injuries to deceased Dinesh and grievous injuries to Shanti Lal. GJ-1-HL 5251 being driven by its Driver i.e. R 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and thereby causing fatal injuries to deceased Dinesh and grievous injuries to Shanti Lal. (2) Whether Insurance Company in view of the preliminary objections and reply on merits can be relieved from its liability, if no, its effect. (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get the amount claimed or any other just amount, if yes, then how much amount and from whom. (4) Relief. “ 2.4 On appraisal of record, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,40,880 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application in favour of respondents No.1 to 4 (legal representatives of Dinesh deceased victim of the accident) to be paid by the appellant – Insurance Company. 3. In claim petition filed by Shanti Lal which arose out of the same accident, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,70,744 for Shanti Lal’s injuries (fracture of femur and dislocation of clavicle), covering medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, and other non-pecuniary damages. 3.1 The appellant has not challenged the award of compensation in favour of Shanti Lal. The instant appeal is directed only against the award of compensation by the learned Tribunal in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 (legal representatives of Dinesh deceased victim of the accident). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Tribunal has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned award dated 11.04.2018 awarding compensation in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4. The findings are contrary to the evidence on record and the settled legal principles, including Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (Raj.), in Claim Case No. 275/2018, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.1. He contends that the Tribunal granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide order dated 13.08.2018. Hence, the findings on the quantum of compensation are open to challenge. 4.2 He submits that as per the record, the deceased, Dinesh Kumar, was a 25-year-old mason and left behind four dependents. The minimum wage at the time of the accident (03.05.2017) was Rs. 7,200/- per month. The Tribunal failed to assess compensation correctly based on this. Furthermore, the Tribunal wrongly calculated the total compensation as Rs. 14,40,880/-. 4.2 He submits that as per the record, the deceased, Dinesh Kumar, was a 25-year-old mason and left behind four dependents. The minimum wage at the time of the accident (03.05.2017) was Rs. 7,200/- per month. The Tribunal failed to assess compensation correctly based on this. Furthermore, the Tribunal wrongly calculated the total compensation as Rs. 14,40,880/-. In the absence of proof of actual income, the computation should have been based on the minimum wage of Rs. 5,382/- per month. The Tribunal erroneously presumed an income of Rs. 7,200/- per month and added 40% for future prospects due to the victim’s young age, along with Rs. 70,000/- under conventional heads, as per Supreme Court rendition in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi( AIR 2017 SC 4973 ). The correct compensation would come to Rs. 10,94,732/-, while the Tribunal has over-awarded Rs. 3,46,148/-, contrary to settled legal norms. Therefore, the finding on Issue No.3 is flawed, and the award dated 11.04.2018 should be quashed and set aside. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case record. 6. As already noted, claim petition filed by Shanti Lal also arose out of the same accident and was premised inter alia on the basis that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing registration number GJ-1-HL-5251, being driven by Respondent No. 5-Firoz Khan. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,70,744 for Shanti Lal’s injuries The appellant has not challenged the award of compensation in favour of Shanti Lal. This implies acceptance by the appellant of the learned Tribunal’s finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Bolero vehicle bearing registration number GJ-1-HL-5251, being driven by Respondent No. 5-Firoz Khan. The appellant is thus precluded by it’s act and conduct from questioning the said finding. Further, there is no material on record brought to the notice of this Court to dispute the said finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal. 7. At this stage, reference may be had to the relevant part of the impugned judgment / award dated 11.04.2018 which is as under :- “9. Issue no.2:- Whether the R2 Insurance Company in view of the objections and reply on merits can be relieved from its liability, if No, Its effect in law. 7. At this stage, reference may be had to the relevant part of the impugned judgment / award dated 11.04.2018 which is as under :- “9. Issue no.2:- Whether the R2 Insurance Company in view of the objections and reply on merits can be relieved from its liability, if No, Its effect in law. The burden to prove this issue was on the Insurance company which failed to prove the facts as pleaded. No Evidence was led by R 3 in this regard. Hence the issue is decided against the R-3 and in favour of the petitioner. Smt. Manju & ors. v. Firoz Khan & ors. CIS no. 781/17 MACP No.275/18. 10. Issue No.03:- The relevant factor to decide the quantum of the compensation are age, income, dependents of the deceased and future prospect of the deceased as held by Honble supreme court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors v. DTC & Another 2009 ACJ 1298 and SLP no 25590 of 2014 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. AW-1 testified to the effect that deceased died in the accident. And further she testified that Deceased was working as Mason and doing the work of agriculture and was earning Rs. 500 per day. It is further testified that the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident. It is also well settled preposition of law that the age of the deceased shall be the basis to select the multiplier. The age of the deceased completed 25 years as per Adhar Card. The multiplier of 17' would be applicable in the case in hand. 11. Admittedly there was no documentary proof of the income of the deceased was produced by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Income can be assessed on the assumption by taking into consideration the factor of nature of work of the petitioner if no documentary evidence are produced by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that there is no income of the deceased. In the given facts and circumstances there is not even a single documents/material before the court to assume or to come to the conclusion that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.20000 per month. The deceased was a labourer. Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that there is no income of the deceased. In the given facts and circumstances there is not even a single documents/material before the court to assume or to come to the conclusion that the deceased used to earn an amount of Rs.20000 per month. The deceased was a labourer. Accordingly, in the case in hand, as per record, in the given facts and circumstances income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs 7200 per month at the time of accident. Towards the future prospects 40% increase in the income of the deceased seems to be just, fair and reasonable as per direction of Honbkle Supreme court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Towards the deduction of personal expenses the 1/3 of the income of the deceased is deducted towards the personal expenses as per the judgment of Sarla Varma (Supra). 12. Calculation: Income Rs.7200 per month and Rs 2880 added as future prospects. Income is assessed Rs. 10,080/- per month. After deduction of 1/3 i.e. Rs 3360 towards the personal expenses of the deceased the remaining amounts' comes to Rs.6720 per month. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,70,880/- (Rs.6720X12X17). Towards the head of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses an amount of Compensation of Rs 70,000 is also granted. The overall compensation of the death of deceased thus comes to Rs.14,40,880. Amount of interim compensation of Rs 50,000/- be adjusted if any. As per record the offending vehicle was duly insured R3 at the relevant time and accordingly R3 is directed to deposit within 30 days from today the awarded amount with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 02.08.17 till notice of deposit of award amount to be given by R3 to the petitioners and their counsel.” 8. The appellant contends that at the relevant time, the driver (Respondent No. 5) did not hold a valid license or permit, constituting a breach of the insurance policy. However, it failed to lead any evidence to substantiate this claim. The burden of proof of this plea rested on the Insurance Company, but it failed to lead any evidence to discharge that onus. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in recording the finding against the appellant. However, it failed to lead any evidence to substantiate this claim. The burden of proof of this plea rested on the Insurance Company, but it failed to lead any evidence to discharge that onus. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in recording the finding against the appellant. 8.1 Undisputably, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant at the time of the accident. In the absence of evidence proving a policy violation, the Insurance Company could not be relieved of its liability. Thus, the Tribunal’s finding on issue No. 2 is sound and correct as per record and the same is upheld. 9 . The Tribunal’s calculation of compensation for both the deceased (Dinesh) adheres to settled legal principles and is reasonable. The Tribunal assessed the deceased’s income at Rs. 7,200/- per month, considering he was a mason and the minimum wage at the time of the accident (03.05.2017). The appellant argued that the income should have been Rs. 5,382 per month due to lack of proof of actual income. However, in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal’s reliance on the minimum wage for a skilled laborer like a mason (Rs. 7,200) is reasonable and in consonance with judicial precedents. 9.1 The Tribunal added 40% for future prospects, as mandated by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ( AIR 2017 SC 4973 ), given the deceased’s young age (25 years). The multiplier of 17, based on the age of the deceased, was correctly applied as per Sarla Verma v. DTC ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). 10. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 of the income (Rs. 3,360) for personal expenses, correctly considering the four dependents. Amount of Rs. 70,000 was awarded for conventional heads (loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses). Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 14,40,880 (Rs. 6,720 x 12 x 17 + Rs. 70,000) is mathematically accurate and legally justified. The appellant’s claim that the correct amount should be Rs. 10,94,732 is based on an arbitrarily lower income assumption (Rs. 5,382), which lacks evidentiary support. 11. If anything, in fact, it appears that each of the four respondents No. 1 to 4 ought to have been awarded higher amount of compensation of Rs. 44,000/-under the head ‘loss of consortium’ (total Rs. 17,6000/-) plus the due amount of compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses of the deceased. 5,382), which lacks evidentiary support. 11. If anything, in fact, it appears that each of the four respondents No. 1 to 4 ought to have been awarded higher amount of compensation of Rs. 44,000/-under the head ‘loss of consortium’ (total Rs. 17,6000/-) plus the due amount of compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses of the deceased. As against this, the learned Tribunal awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 7,0000/- only for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses of the deceased. The same is not, however, interfered as respondents No. 1 to 4 have not filed any appeal or counter-claim for enhancement of compensation. 12. To sum up, there is no perversity or illegality in learned Tribunal’s findings based on evidence and meticulous application of legal principles. The Tribunal correctly attributed negligence to the driver (Respondent No.1) based on credible evidence. The Insurance Company (appellant) failed to prove any breach of policy terms to avoid liability. This court ought to exercise restraint in interfering with Tribunal awards unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice or gross misapplication of law. The appellant’s objections primarily hinge on a lower income assumption and unproven claims of policy breach, neither of which withstand judicial scrutiny. The Tribunal’s award is based on a fair appreciation of evidence and as per applicable legal norms. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. No interference is thus called for to disturb the finding of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal. In result, the appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal’s award dated 11.04.2018 stands upheld. 13. Dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.