B. P. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THE insurer New India assurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act')challenging the judgment passed by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, cuttack, in Misc. Case No. 117 of 1995 in which a sum of Rs. 8,05,000 has been awarded as compensation for the death of one Kishore Chandra Rath in a motor vehicular accident and liability of payment of compensation amount has been saddled on the insurer of the offending vehicle. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, i. e. , the widow of the deceased Kishore Chandra Rath, has filed a cross-appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation thereby praying to award entire Rs. 20,00,000 as claimed in the claim petition. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the factual backdrop is that on 7. 9. 1994 at about 4. 30 p. m. the deceased Kishore Chandra Rath was proceeding on his Vijaya Super scooter bearing registration No. OSX 5431 from bhubaneswar towards Cuttack on National highway No. 5. While so proceeding, near bamphakuda one Ambassador car bearing registration No. BHT 239 came from the opposite direction, i. e. , from Cuttack side, in a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's scooter as a result of which the deceased was thrown out and due to severe head injuries the deceased became unconscious. He was immediately removed to the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital, cuttack, where he was declared dead. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 24 years and married just 6 months before. He was working as a Sales Officer under sinclair Murray and Co. Ltd. of Calcutta and was posted at Bhubaneswar with a salary of Rs. 7,000 per month. The widow and the old parents of the deceased filed an application under section 166 of the Act before the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Cuttack, against the owner and the insurer of the offending car claiming a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 for the death of deceased. While the insurer, i. e. , the present appellant, contested the case by filing written statement the owner chose to remain ex pane. 20,00,000 for the death of deceased. While the insurer, i. e. , the present appellant, contested the case by filing written statement the owner chose to remain ex pane. ( 4 ) ON the pleading of the parties, the tribunal framed three issues and on appreciation of the materials on record came to hold that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car and claimants were entitled to compensation, which was assessed at rs. 8,05,000. As the offending car was validly insured with the insurer, i. e. , the present appellant and the driver of the car had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, according to the Tribunal, the owner is entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal in assessing the compensation mainly relied upon a communication made by the deceased's employer to the insurer wherein the salary of the deceased was indicated to be Rs. 7,060 per month at-the time of his death and after deducting therefrom a sum of Rs. 3,060 towards his own maintenance, fixed the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs. 4,000 and annual contribution at Rs. 48,000 which was rounded to Rs. 50,000. Applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal assessed the total dependency at Rs. 8,00,000 and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium, thereby determining the total compensation at Rs. 8,05,000. ( 6 ) THE insurer appellant has challenged the award contending that the Tribunal is wrong in accepting income of the deceased at Rs. 7,060 on the basis of a copy of the letter issued by the deceased's employer, i. e. , Sinclair Murray and Co. Ltd. , Calcutta, to the appellant company, vide Exh. 6, when the author of such document has not been examined. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the monthly contribution of deceased so assessed by the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 2 has, on the other hand, contended that as the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,060 per month at the time of his death, he would have reached the peak position in the company with a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000 by the time of his retirement in usual course. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 2 has, on the other hand, contended that as the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,060 per month at the time of his death, he would have reached the peak position in the company with a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000 by the time of his retirement in usual course. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal is wrong in denying the compensation for the loss of future prospects of the deceased. For the aforesaid reasons, it was submitted, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is erroneous. Besides, award of Rs. 5,000 towards consortium for the loss of company by the widow, who lost her husband only after six months of her marriage is unjust and unreasonable. The claimant has, therefore, in the cross-appeal prayed for grant of the full amount of compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 as claimed in the claim petition. ( 7 ) THE fact remains that there is no dispute either as to the validity of the insurance policy or the driving licence. During the course of argument, much emphasis was given by the learned counsel for the appellant on Exh. 6, which is a copy of the letter issued by the deceased's employer to the Divisional Manager of the appellant company furnishing therewith the details regarding the deceased including the salary particulars of the deceased who was working as a Sales Officer under Sinclair murray and Co. Ltd. of Calcutta. The aforesaid letter was given by the employer of the deceased to the Divisional Manager of the insurance company in reply to its letter dated 20. 2. 1996 wherein certain information regarding the deceased, who was then working as Sales Officer and died in a motor vehicle accident on 7. 9. 1994, was sought for. In the aforesaid letter it was disclosed that the deceased was a Bachelor degree holder in Commerce with Honours from the Utkal University and his date of birth was 14. 7. 1970 and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,060 per month besides other perquisites. Therefore, no objection can be raised to the acceptance of the copy of the aforesaid letter as an exhibit, when the same was produced by the claimant. Nothing was brought out by the insurer to dispute the aforesaid document, Exh. 6. 7. 1970 and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 7,060 per month besides other perquisites. Therefore, no objection can be raised to the acceptance of the copy of the aforesaid letter as an exhibit, when the same was produced by the claimant. Nothing was brought out by the insurer to dispute the aforesaid document, Exh. 6. But all this has become academic in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), wherein it was held that unless the insurer is permitted by the Tribunal in terms of section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, it cannot challenge the award questioning either the quantum or negligence. In this case admittedly no permission was granted to the insurer. ( 8 ) NOW coming to the cross-appeal filed by respondent No. 2, i. e. , the widow of the deceased, there is nothing to disturb the finding of the Tribunal that deceased was drawing a sum of Rs. 7,060 per month towards his salary at the time of his death. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 3,060 towards personal expenses of the deceased. Here the Tribunal has fallen into an error in deducting Rs. 3,060 for personal expenses of the deceased without any basis. The Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd from the monthly salary of the deceased towards his personal expenses when the deceased at the time of his death was aged only 24 years and married only 6 months back. Accordingly, on deducting 1/3rd, i. e. , Rs. 2,353 towards personal expenses from the salary of Rs. 7,060, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 4,707 and the annual dependency Rs. 56,484. As the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of his death, the multiplier of 16 so applied by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore, the total dependency comes to Rs. 9,03,744. Since the claimant was deprived of the company of the de-ceased at a very young age, I award a sum of Rs. 9,500 towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Thus, the total com-pensation comes to Rs. 9,13,244, which is rounded to Rs. 9,14,000. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to Rs. 9,14,000 as compensation. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the Tri-bunal is modified to the extent indicated above. Thus, the total com-pensation comes to Rs. 9,13,244, which is rounded to Rs. 9,14,000. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to Rs. 9,14,000 as compensation. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award passed by the Tri-bunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant insurer is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,14,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the applica-tion till realisation. Let the entire awarded amount be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 4 weeks hence. On such deposit, the compensation amount shall be disbursed to the claimants on proper application and identification in terms of the direction given by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partly allowed.