SHAMBHOO SINGH, J. ( 1 ) NON-APPLICANT/ appellant insurance company has filed this appeal for reducing compensation amount awarded to the respondents vide award dated 4. 10. 1996 passed by II Additional member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar, in Claim Case No. 31 of 1996. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 3. 7. 1993 when Anandband, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was going to nagada with milk cans on his cycle, he was dashed by truck No. DIG 4753 owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent no. 1 and insured with the appellant, near village Kalsada, and succumbed to his injuries. The claimants sought compensation of Rs. 13,05,000. The appellant, inter alia, pleaded that the respondent No. 1 had no valid driving licence on the date of accident. The accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. The tribunal after appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No, 1 Hardev Singh, driver, and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,93,000. The appellant insurance company has filed this appeal for reduction of compensation amount. ( 3 ) MR. Swami, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error in awarding compensation of Rs. 2,93,000. He submitted that it is unreasonably on higher side, it should be reduced. On the other hand, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, submitted that the appellant insurance company did not obtain permission from the Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act for contesting the case on merits, therefore, it cannot challenge the compensation amount. He further argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not on higher side. ( 4 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. We agree with Mr. Garg, learned counsel for respondents that the appellant insurance company could take only those defences enumerated in section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Appellant did not seek permission of the tribunal for contesting the case on merits and, therefore, it cannot challenge the award on merits. The appellant failed to prove violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appellant did not seek permission of the tribunal for contesting the case on merits and, therefore, it cannot challenge the award on merits. The appellant failed to prove violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) EVEN otherwise, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or on higher side. It has come in the evidence of Dhapubai, widow of the deceased, that her husband used to sell more than 30 litres of milk per day and also used to earn Rs. 30,000 per year by cultivating agricultural land belonging to temple. The Tribunal held that the deceased was selling only 20 litres of milk per day and after deducting expenses, his monthly income comes to Rs. 2,000 and yearly Rs. 24,000. The claimants did not file record of the land cultivated by the deceased and, therefore, the Tribunal did not believe it. However, it assessed yearly income of thedeceased at Rs. 24,000 from the milk. It cannot be said that the deceased could not earn Rs. 2,000 per month by selling milk in the relevant year, i. e. , 1993. No evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the non-applicant insurance company. Under such circumstances, the tribunal committed no error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 24,000 yearly. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of it for personal expenses of the deceased and determined dependency of the claimants at rs. 16,000. It selected the multiplier of 18 in view of the age of the deceased which was shown as 30 years in the post-mortem examination and multiplied it with the multiplicand and worked out Rs. 2,88,000. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000 for physical and mental pain which could not be allowed but this amount could be awarded for loss of love and affection and consortium and thus the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,93,000. It cannot be said to be unreasonable, unjust or improper. ( 6 ) IN the result, we find no substance in the appeal and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .