JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Durg dated 28.1.1988 whereby a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,95,240/- has been awarded to the claimants (respondents Nos. 1 to 6) of deceased Rajaram who was aged 47 years on the date of accident i.e. 25.12.1990 and was engaged in the business of supply of building material. Shri Gulab Sohane, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company points out from the order-sheets of the Claims Tribunal that as the owner and rider of the other two wheeler motor vehicle (respondent nos. 7 and 8) were ex-parte and did not contest the case, the insurance company was granted opportunity under section 170 of the Act to take all defences on their behalf. The facts not in dispute are that - the deceased who was rider of the scooter collided with the Luna of which respondent No.7 was the rider and died in hospital on the subsequent date of the accident i.e. on 25.12.1990. The appellant-insurance company is insurer of the Luna belonging to respondent and which was being ridden by respondent No.7. The award of the Claims Tribunal is assailed in this appeal by counsel on behalf of the insurer of the Luna contending that the deceased who was riding the scooter was himself negligent in driving and in state of intoxication collided with the Luna. Learned counsel submits that counsel for the insurance company in the Tribunal sought permission to summon the FIR made to the police and the statements· of witnesses recorded by the police. That opportunity was denied by the Tribunal. It is contended that since there was negligence on the part of the deceased himself, and in any case, there was a contributory negligence on his part, the case should be remanded to afford fair opportunity to the insurance company to lead evidence on contributory negligence of the deceased as scooter rider. The second ground urged is that the deceased had no fixed income as supplier of building material. He was not an income-tax payee and yet, the Tribunal committed an error in estimating his income at Rs. 5000/- per month. The award of compensation, therefore, is also challenged on the ground that it is excessive. We have also heard Shri Ashok Lalwani, appearing for the claimants. He was not an income-tax payee and yet, the Tribunal committed an error in estimating his income at Rs. 5000/- per month. The award of compensation, therefore, is also challenged on the ground that it is excessive. We have also heard Shri Ashok Lalwani, appearing for the claimants. He supported the award passed by the Tribunal. We have goen through the order-sheets of the Tribunal. The insurance company was granted opportunity to contest the case on all grounds and thereafter the burden was on the insurance company to prove that the deceased was negligent in any manner and his own negligence was cause of the accident. The claim was instituted in 1990 and was decided in 1997. Ii cannot, therefore, be held that the Tribunal did not afford adequate opportunity to the insurance company to produce whatsoever evidence it desired. The postmortem report of the deceased is also on record and it does not show that he was in an intoxicated state at the time of accident. The evidence produced by the claimants show that it is the rider of the Luna who was negligent and it was the Luna which hit the scooter. There is no evidence in rebuttal of any eye-witness to the accident examined on behalf of the insurance company. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the deceased was in any manner negligent so as to apportion any liability between the insurer of the Luna and the insurer of the scooter. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is not disputed that the deceased was engaged in the business of supply of building material. He has left behind a widow and five children. Keeping in mind his status and the number of dependents, estimate of his monthly income at Rs. 5000/- is just and fair. As a matter of fact, with the passage of time the income of the deceased would have further increased and his average income during his expected life time has not been taken into account. We, therefore, do not find that the Tribunal by estimating his income at Rs. 5000/- per month and working out annual dependency on that basis committed any error in calculating the compensation taking a multiplier of 12. There is also no scope for interfering with the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find that the Tribunal by estimating his income at Rs. 5000/- per month and working out annual dependency on that basis committed any error in calculating the compensation taking a multiplier of 12. There is also no scope for interfering with the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.