Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79416 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3138 of 2009 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Kamla And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Sharma Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 3. No one is present on behalf of respondent no. 4, who is owner of the vehicle. 2. This first appeal from order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 04.08.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No 1/M.A.C.T., Meerut in M.A.C.P. No. 736 of 2008 (Smt. Kamla and others vs. Durgesh Kumar and another), by which, compensation of Rs.5,92,500/-/- alongwith 7.5% interest has been awarded on account of death of Rahul aged about 19 years, who died in a road accident on 20.07.2008. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 15 accepting the age of claimants in between 40-45 years, whereas multiplier of 14 would be applicable. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal had also erred in deduction 1/3rd towards personal expenses whereas deceased was unmarried and deduction would be 1/2., in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C. reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Claimants-respondents submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier on the age of the claimants who are parents of the deceased, whereas law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) that multiplier would be applicable on the age of the deceased. In the present case the age of the deceased was 19 years and as such the appropriate multiplier would be 18. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded towards future prospect and compensation cannot be said to be excessive. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15 on the age of the claimants whereas the appropriate multiplier would be 18 on the age of the deceased, who was 19 years at the time of accident. The Claims Tribunal has also erred in deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses of the deceased whereas deduction would be 1/2. Since the Claims Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards future prospects and multiplier was also wrongly applied as 15 in place of 18, the compensation cannot said to be excessive in any manner. In overall assessment the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is almost just and proper, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 6. The first appeal from order is hereby dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad