JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, assailing the judgment and award dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.105 of 2011, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.28,91,216/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants on account of the death of Ganesh Singh in a motor accident dated 07.07.2011. 2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 07.07.2011 at about 05:30 A.M., deceased Ganesh Singh was travelling as a bona fide passenger in a bus bearing registration no. UP-25 T-9467, owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The bus was proceeding from Bareilly towards Tanakpur on the Bareilly-Pilibhit road. It was submitted that the bus was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the bus reached near Lalorikheda Tiraha, the driver lost control and the bus collided from behind with a stationary truck bearing registration no. UP-21 N-3840, which was parked on the roadside. As a result of the collision, Ganesh Singh sustained serious injuries and was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Pilibhit, where he succumbed to his injuries on the same day during treatment. The deceased was stated to be aged about 33 years, serving in the Indian Army (5 Guards Regiment) as a Naik and earning a regular salary along with allowances. The claimants asserted that due to his untimely death, they suffered irreparable loss of dependency, love and affection, and financial security. 3. The claim petition was filed by the minor children of the deceased through their mother and natural guardian, along with the widow of the deceased. It was pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver employed by UPSRTC. It was further pleaded that the deceased was a healthy and disciplined Army personnel drawing a monthly salary of Rs.24,271/-, besides several allowances and benefits. The claimants asserted that the deceased used to contribute substantially towards the maintenance of the family and education of the minor children. The claimants relied upon documentary evidence including the First Information Report, post- mortem report, salary certificate, service record, family register, and other official documents to establish the accident, death, age, income, and dependency. The claimants asserted that the deceased used to contribute substantially towards the maintenance of the family and education of the minor children. The claimants relied upon documentary evidence including the First Information Report, post- mortem report, salary certificate, service record, family register, and other official documents to establish the accident, death, age, income, and dependency. On these premises, compensation under various heads was claimed. 4. The driver of the bus, arrayed as respondent no. 2 before the Tribunal, did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded ex parte. Consequently, no independent written statement was filed by the driver denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving. 5. The appellant-Corporation filed its written statement denying the allegations of negligence. It was pleaded that the bus was being driven carefully and at a normal speed. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to a sudden appearance of a cyclist on the road, in an attempt to save whom the driver applied brakes, resulting in the bus colliding with a stationary truck. It was further pleaded that the truck was wrongly parked on the road without any signal or indicator and that the driver of the bus was not at fault. The appellant also questioned the quantum of compensation claimed and contended that the claim was exaggerated and excessive. 6. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the followings issues for adjudication: 1. Whether on 07.07.2011 at about 5:30 AM, near Lalorikheda Tiraha on the Bareilly–Pilibhit road, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. UP-25 T-9467, resulting in the death of Ganesh Singh? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation, and if so, what amount and from whom? 7. While deciding Issue no. 1 the Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the UPSRTC bus. The Tribunal relied upon the FIR, site plan, post-mortem report, and testimony of witnesses to conclude that the bus hit a stationary truck from behind, which clearly indicated lack of due care on the part of the bus driver. The Tribunal further observed that no convincing evidence was led by the appellant to establish the defence of sudden appearance of a cyclist. The driver, who was the best witness to support the defence, was neither examined nor produced. The Tribunal further observed that no convincing evidence was led by the appellant to establish the defence of sudden appearance of a cyclist. The driver, who was the best witness to support the defence, was neither examined nor produced. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants. 8. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged 33 years at the time of the accident and was serving in the Indian Army. On the basis of the salary certificate and allowances, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.23,396/- after permissible deductions. Applying the multiplier of 16, deducting one-third towards personal expenses, and adding amounts under conventional heads, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.28,91,216/-. The Tribunal further awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The Tribunal also apportioned the compensation among the claimants and directed the appellant–Corporation to deposit the awarded amount within the stipulated period. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and upon a careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal lacks merit and does not warrant interference with the impugned award. The finding returned by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the UPSRTC bus, which collided from behind with a stationary truck. The defence sought to be raised by the appellant that the accident occurred due to a sudden appearance of a cyclist remained unsubstantiated. Significantly, the driver of the bus, who was the most material witness to support such a plea, was not examined. In the absence of any cogent evidence to dislodge the claimants’ version, the finding on negligence cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. As regards the determination of compensation, this Court finds that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of reliable documentary evidence, including the salary certificate and service record, and has excluded inadmissible components while computing the monthly income. As regards the determination of compensation, this Court finds that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of reliable documentary evidence, including the salary certificate and service record, and has excluded inadmissible components while computing the monthly income. The deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses is in conformity with settled law, keeping in view the number of dependents. 10. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16, which is appropriate for the age of the deceased and is strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The selection of multiplier thus suffers from no legal infirmity. The addition towards future prospects has also been rightly granted, considering that the deceased was a permanent employee in the Indian Army. The Tribunal’s approach is consistent with the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , which mandates addition towards future prospects for salaried employees depending upon age. The compensation awarded under conventional heads and the rate of interest granted are also reasonable and in consonance with settled principles. This Court finds that the Tribunal has undertaken a careful and judicious exercise in determining the compensation and has neither ignored material evidence nor misapplied the law. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned award so as to justify interference in appellate jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pithoragarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 105 of 2011 are hereby affirmed. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company before the claims tribunal within 2 months from today along with interest up to date. The respondent-claimant shall be entitled to receive the compensation so deposited.