P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS A. H. O. is directed against the judgment dated 18-5-1995 in Misc. Appeal No. 369 of 1992 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court. The claimant-respondent smt. Renuka Mohapatra filed claim petition claiming for compensation due to death of her husband Sarat Chandra mohapatra in an automobile accident while travelling as a passenger in the vehicle bearing registration No. O. A. C. 8496, a contract carriage, belonging to M/s. Sahu Transport Corporation, the appellant. Respondents 3 to 9, in this A. H. O. , are the children of Late Sarat chandra Mohapatra and Smt. Renuka mohapatra. They were not figuring as claimants in the claim petition, but the award passed by the 2nd M. A. C. T. , Northern Division sambalpur provides for apportionment of compensation in their favour and, therefore, on their application in the appellate forum Learned single Judge permitted them to be added as parties and that is how in this A. H. O. the appellant has made them respondents. ( 2 ) THE claim case was contested by the opp. Party No. 1 the present appellant so also by the Opp. Party No. 2, the Insurance Company, which figures as respondent No. 1 in this A. H. O. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case of the claimant, on 26-11-1985 when the deceased was travelling the bus OAC 8496, that bus met with accident due to rush and negligent driving of the driver. By then the deceased was working as an Amin in Revenue Department being posted at Parjang, Assessing the loss and expenditure, the claimant made a claim of compensation for Rs. 2,88,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty eight thousand ). Appellant-Opp. Party No. 1 challenged the status of the claimant as the widow of the deceased and also stated that the deceased was not a passenger of that bus, since that was playing as a contract carriage. Opp. party No. 2 Insurance company filed written statement stating that it had no knowledge about the accident and death of the deceased due to any such accident and in any case extent of liability of the insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) per passenger in case of death. Parties examined witnesses and led evidence. Opp. party No. 2 Insurance company filed written statement stating that it had no knowledge about the accident and death of the deceased due to any such accident and in any case extent of liability of the insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) per passenger in case of death. Parties examined witnesses and led evidence. While assessing the same, Learned claim Tribunal called for and perused the police records and the case record of G. R. Case and ultimately accepted the claim of the claimants and determined that compensation at Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One lakh thirty thousand)with the direction for apportionment of the same amongst the claimant and her children. The Claims Tribunal also fixed the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) and rest of the liability on the owner/appellant. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid award dated 14-5-1992 of the Claims Tribunal was challenged by the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 369 of 1992. Learned Single Judge, as per the impugned judgment, upheld the direction for payment of compensation but reduced the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand) and accordingly modified the order of apportionment amongst the claimant and her children. Learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the appellant and took exception to the conduct of the Claim tribunal in calling for and perusing the case diary and the G. R. Case record without such documents being accepted as evidence on record. After excluding such documents from consideration, Learned Single Judge assessed the evidence on record and stated that even in the exclusion of the police records the evidence on record proves that the vehicle suffered an accident and the deceased travelling as a passenger died in that automobile accident and the owner of the contract carriage and the Insurance company are liable to pay compensation to the extent of their respective liabilities. Learned Single Judge also accepted the contention of the appellant to reduce the rate of multiplier. However, he accepted 11 as the multiplier as against the suggestion of the appellant that it should be 7 or 8. Accordingly he determined the compensation at rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand)with interest. Learned Single Judge also accepted the contention of the appellant to reduce the rate of multiplier. However, he accepted 11 as the multiplier as against the suggestion of the appellant that it should be 7 or 8. Accordingly he determined the compensation at rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand)with interest. ( 5 ) WHILE challenging to the aforesaid judgment of the Learned Single Judge, appellant has stated that the factual finding recorded by the Learned Single Judge that the deceased was a passenger in the contract carriage is based on no evidence on record. After perusing the evidence on record and the findings of the Claims Tribunal as well as Learned Single judge, we find no merit in the contention. The factual finding and conclusion arrived by the courts below does not require interference being not suffering from illegality or perversity. ( 6 ) APPELLANT challenged to the impugned judgment on the ground that status of the claimant as the widow of the deceased was not proved. We also equally find no merit in that argument because of unchallenged evidence of the claimant in that respect. The appellant also challenged to inclusion of the children of the deceased as parties in the appeal when they were not parties to the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. We also find no merit in that argument inasmuch as in the award passed by the Claims Tribunal he had taken note of the existence of the children who are entitled to compensation together with the widow of the deceased. As a last resort, appellant challenged to the quantum of compensation. We find that the deceased being a Government employee getting salary, the mode of calculation made by Learned Single Judge is on a pragmatic approach and applying 11 multiplier, which does not appear to be either illegal or unjustified. Under such circumstances, that argument of the appellant is also devoid of any merit. For the reasons indicated above, we do not find any merit in this A. H. O. and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.