A. K. MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THE insurer has filed the present appeal aggrieved by award, dated 21. 4. 1999, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Tikamgarh, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 3,64,515 on account of death of the deceased Abdul jahur allowing the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of submitting the claim petition till realisation. ( 2 ) ABDUL Jahur was working as a peon in the Department of Central Railway at jhansi. His salary was according to claimants, Rs. 2,000 per month. On 23. 5. 1993, he was travelling on a moped No. UP 93-A 5014 as a pillion rider. Said moped was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , the present appellant. Moped was being driven by Prem Narayan. The claimants submitted that moped met with an accident with truck No. MPW 1986 due to which abdul Jahur was seriously injured, taken to the Medical College Hospital, Jhansi, died after seven days on 30. 5. 1993. Police report was also lodged. A total sum of rs. 5,50,000 was claimed with interest at 18 per cent per annum. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,52,515 on account of loss of dependency. The income of the deceased was assessed from the pay certificate Exh. P-3 at Rs. 2,361 per month. An amount of Rs. 525 was deducted on account of self-expenditure by the deceased. Dependency was determined at Rs. 1,836 per month, multiplier of 16 was applied. Thus the said loss of dependency was arrived at. In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000 on account of consortium, Rs. 5,000 medical expenses and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses were awarded, thus, a total sum of rs. 3,64,515 was awarded by the Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal found that the accident took place owing to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the moped hence the insurer of the moped was held liable to indemnify. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in the present appeal has vehemently submitted that the finding with respect to rash and negligent driving of driver of the moped is bad in law. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in the present appeal has vehemently submitted that the finding with respect to rash and negligent driving of driver of the moped is bad in law. ( 5 ) THE defences of the insurer are restricted as per the provision under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, according to which, negligence and the quantum are not defences available to the insurer. The learned counsel submitted that as soon as it was found that the truck driver was not negligent the claim petition ought to have been dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel is devoid of substance as the Tribunal is not bound by the pleadings but it has to give a finding of its own on material available on record and after giving the finding of the negligence of moped driver the liability has been imposed on the insurer of the moped which cannot be said impermissible. ( 6 ) NO other submission has been made. ( 7 ) THE appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .