Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award passed by the 5th Addl. District Judge cum MACT in Claim Case no. 76/98(5/2000) whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- had been granted to the claimants. 3. The claimants are the parents of the deceased, Sunil Kumar who at the age of 21 years had met with a motor accident and died almost instantaneously. The truck bearing registration no. BRD 1662 was admittedly insured with the appellant Insurance Company at the relevant time. Against the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement but they did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. After consideration of the evidence from the claimants side, the tribunal found that the accident occurred due to fault of the offending vehicle and hence it was held that the claimants-respondents are entitled for compensation. Under the new Act, having been come into force, practically negligence is necessary to be proved in view of the specific provisions being made. Only when accident is there and a vehicle is involved in that accident then compensation is to be awarded on the basis of socio-economic legislature being made for the purpose. By construing the deceaseds monthly income and after deducting his personal expenses, a multiplier 17 was applied by the tribunal and then awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/-. 4. The plea of the Insurance Company is that at the relevant time the driver of the offending vehicle was not having proper licence which can be revealed from the inspection report as submitted by the surveyor at a subsequent date. But that report although being submitted in the court below has not been considered by the tribunal. On the face of it no such plea was taken by the Insurance Company in his written statement and no evidence has also been adduced from the side of the Insurance Company. Fifing of such documents do not create any right in favour of the Insurance company unless those documents are being proved properly. A so called report being submitted by the surveyor at a subsequent date can have no locus standi to be considered that there was no valid licence with the offencing vehicle. 5. In that way, I do not find that the learned tribunal had committed any error. A so called report being submitted by the surveyor at a subsequent date can have no locus standi to be considered that there was no valid licence with the offencing vehicle. 5. In that way, I do not find that the learned tribunal had committed any error. Regarding quantum of compensation it is submitted by the learned counsel for Insurance Company that the quantum has been calculated in the higher side by applying higher multiplier of 17 and the age of the parents have not been considered. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the claimants-respondents that the deceased was aged only 21 years and he was unmarried even and the parents were at the age group of 40 years at the relevant time of accident. In that way, I do not find that multiplier of 17 could be construed to be on a higher side. 6. On consideration of all the points raised and discussions made above, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is rejected. 7. The amount which has been deposited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act may be disbursed as a part payment towards the claim if uptil-now the Insurance company has not paid the awarded amount. The payment of the award should be made within one month positively. 8. This appeal is disposed of with the above observation.