JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned counsel for the claimants-caveators. 2. Two points have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first being that the amount of compensation, awarded by the learned Tribunal, on no fault liability basis, has not been accounted for while passing the final award and, therefore, the amount finally awarded is required to be reduced to that extent. 3. The second contention raised is that, the deceased was a bachelor, being 20 years of age, and the claimants being the parents, are and 45 years of age and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was in error in applying the multiplier of applicable for the age group of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the multiplier, applicable to the age group of the claimants, is required to be applied. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that. so far as the selection of multiplier is concerned, this contention is not open to the insurer-appellant, as the application filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has already been dismissed. So far as the contention about non-accounting for the amount awarded, under no fault liability basis is concerned, to that, learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose, and agrees that, that amount was required to be adjusted in the final award. 5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Trial Court was in error in dismissing the appellant's application under section 10 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as from the mere fact that the defendant No. 1 and 2 did not lead any evidence and closed it, even then learned Tribunal has to grant suo motu permission to the appellant under section 170 of the Act. 6. I have considered the submissions, and find that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the appellant filed under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the same was filed at the fag end, inasmuch as, it as filed after the evidence of the appellant was also closed. If the appellant intended to seek leave of the Court to contest the claim on all, or any of the ground available to the owner, or driver, obviously, it would have been entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. If the appellant intended to seek leave of the Court to contest the claim on all, or any of the ground available to the owner, or driver, obviously, it would have been entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. In such circumstances, when the request was made after closing its evidence. I do not find any error on the part of the learned tribunal in dismissing the appellant's application. Since, I have found that the application of the appellant, filed under section 170 of the Act, has rightly been dismissed, it is not open to challenge the quantum of compensation, awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed only to the extent that the amount, awarded by the learned Tribunal on no fault liability basis, shall be adjusted against the final award, made by the impugned judgment and the interest awarded on the compensation amount, shall also not be paid on that amount from the date, the payment of that amount had been made to the claimants.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******