JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, A.C.J. 1. These are appeals u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act and are directed against the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and have, been carried by the Defendant-State challenging the award of compensation. 2. On 6.7.1974, Bimal Kaati Ray, then working as Executive Engineer, Subarnarekha Division at Jaleswar came on official duty to Balasore to have discussions with his Superintending Engineer over the construction of a bridge. Samples of soil at the foundation level of the place had to be tested at Bhubaneswar and the Executive Engineer was asked to be personally present during the testing. Bimal Kanti left Balasore around 1.30 p.m. that day by a Government jeep bearing registration number O.R.P. 2386 driven by a driver of the State Government towards Bhubaneswar. Along with him in the jeep were his wife Smt. Bani Ray, two minor children Satyajit and Abhijit. They were also accompanied by Bimal Kanti's father Birendra. The vehicle was being driven at high speed and near Chhatia on the National Highway No. V, while negotiating a curve, the jeep over turned several times. As a result of the accident, the occupants of the jeep received multiple injuries, Bimal Kanti and his father succumbed to their injuries while Bimal Kanti's wife and children survived. It was discovered after the accident that the rear wheel of the vehicle had completely gone out of its place by tearing away the rim-plate. Four separate claims were laid: (i) by the widow of the Executive Engineer for self and on behalf of the two minor sons and by the mother of the Executive Engineer which came to be registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 81/1 of 1975. This claim was for compensation for the death of the Executive Engineer ; (ii) by Bimal Kanti's mother which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 82/2 of 1975 ; (iii) The widow of the Executive Engineer laid a separate claim for her own injuries which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 83/3 of 1975 ; and (iv) One of the minor sons-Abhijit- who had received several injuries also laid a separate claim for compensation for his own injuries. Different amounts were claimed on account of such compensation. 3. The Chief Engineer, Roads and Buildings, entered contest on behalf of the State. Different amounts were claimed on account of such compensation. 3. The Chief Engineer, Roads and Buildings, entered contest on behalf of the State. Apart from pleading that the compensation claimed was high, arbitrary and imaginary, it was denied that the jeep was being driven rashly or negligently. It was further claimed that the vehicle was properly maintained. The further averment was that Birendra, father of the Executive Engineer, was not an authorised occupant and he was going from Balasore to Bhubaneswar at his own risk and pleasure and the State had no liability arising out of his death. 4. The Tribunal clubbed all the four cases together and framed five issues. As the vehicle belonged to the State of Orissa and there was no insurance, the Tribunal ultimately awarded compensation to be recovered from the State. For the death of the Executive Engineer a net amount of Rs. 93,500/- was awarded and in the other three cases, compensation of Rs. 8,250/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively was given. The State of Orissa has preferred four separate appeals against the common award. 5. At the time of hearing, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing in support of the appeals does not challenge the liability of the State so far as the claim by the dependents of the Executive Engineer is concerned. His only challenge in that case was to the quantum. Bimal Kanti was a young officer and would have superannuated only at the age of 58. The salary receivable by him, the benefits which would have come to him by way of increments, and the pension that he would have earned if he had not met his unfortunate death by the accident, have been appropriately taken into account by the Tribunal. In fact, the normal service prospects have not been kept in view ; otherwise possibly the compensation could have been more than what has been granted. Learned Additional Government Advocate did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the accident arose on account of the negligence of the driver and, therefore, I do not think, there is any scope for interference with the award of compensation, so far as the claim by the dependents of the Executive Engineer is concerned. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate did not challenge the finding of the Tribunal that the accident arose on account of the negligence of the driver and, therefore, I do not think, there is any scope for interference with the award of compensation, so far as the claim by the dependents of the Executive Engineer is concerned. 6. Similarly, there has been no challenge about the liability of the State to compensate for the suffering arising out of bodily injuries and mental pain to the widow of the Executive Engineer and the minor son. The injuries which were sustained by the minor son were multiple and serious. They have been properly noticed by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the quantum of compensation is also not open to attack. Learned Additional Government Advocate did not seriously contend that the quantum of compensation in regard to these two claims was in any way high. In these circumstances, Miscellaneous Appeals 50, 52 and 53 of 1977 must stand dismissed with a direction that the compensation granted by the Tribunal and now upheld in appeal should be disbursed without delay. There shall be no order for costs in these appeals. Final Result : Dismissed