ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the insurer, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , aggrieved by an award dated 25. 2. 2003 passed by the Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa, in Claim Case No. 190 of 2002 awarding a sum of Rs. 8,39,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on account of death of Suryalal Chaturvedi who was Naib Tehsildar, aged 45 years in the service of the State Government. ( 2 ) IN an accident dated 16. 8. 94 Suryalal Chaturvedi was going in a Maruti van (MP 19-T 0013) from Satna to Mirzapur along with his wife, his sons and daughter. Maruti van was driven by Ramakant Singh alias Chhote. The vehicle was owned by jagmohan Singh. It was insured with Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Truck (UHB 277) was going ahead of Maruti van. It was driven in zigzag manner by the driver Krishna kumar. All of a sudden, he stopped the truck in midst of the road without giving any horn or other indication/signal. Maruti van consequently dashed against the truck, owing to which Varun Ashutosh and Suryalal Chaturvedi died on the spot and Karan Ashutosh and Geeta Devi suffered serious injuries. Truck was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 3 ) THE claimants alleged that deceased was at the verge of promotion on the post of Dy. Collector. Age of the deceased was 40 years. He had remaining service span of 18 years. Compensation of Rs. 21,54,000 was claimed. Claimant mother and brother have also died in the accident, as such, suitable compensation was prayed. ( 4 ) THE owner of the truck, in the written statement, denied the allegations and contended that the driver of the truck was not negligent. Truck was stationary. It was standing for the last 8 hours owing to mechanical defect. Driver did not file any written statement. ( 5 ) JAGMOHAN Singh, owner of Maruti van contended that he had acquaintance with Suryalal Chaturvedi, Naib Tehsildar. He had taken his Maruti van. It was driven by Ramakant Singh. Vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , as such he is not liable to make payment of compensation. Driver did not file any written statement. ( 5 ) JAGMOHAN Singh, owner of Maruti van contended that he had acquaintance with Suryalal Chaturvedi, Naib Tehsildar. He had taken his Maruti van. It was driven by Ramakant Singh. Vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , as such he is not liable to make payment of compensation. ( 6 ) THE driver of Maruti van, Ramakant singh in his reply stated that he was going in slow speed, on his side and was driving maruti van cautiously. Truck (UHB 277) was going ahead, in a high speed all of a sudden was stopped without any signal, owing to which Maruti van dashed the truck. Driver of the truck was negligent, hence, liability is that of driver, owner and insurer of the truck. ( 7 ) THE insurer of Maruti van, Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , contended that the driver of the truck was negligent, as such liability is that of owner, driver and insurer of the truck. Driver of Maruti van was not having valid and effective driving licence. Thus, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. ( 8 ) INSURER of the truck contended that the negligence was that of driver of Maruti van, as such liability is that of the insurer of Maruti van, not that of the truck. The driver of the truck was not having a valid and effective driving licence, as such insurer is not liable. ( 9 ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that the negligence was to the extent of 60 per cent of the driver of the truck and 40 per cent of the driver of Maruti van. The finding of composite negligence to the aforesaid accident has not been assailed in this appeal by Mrs. Amrit Ruprah. She has mainly assailed the quantum of compensation determined by the Claims Tribunal. She has submitted that the deceased was naib Tehsildar. His salary was Rs. 3,600 per month. Claims Tribunal considering the chances of promotion has taken to be at Rs. 8,000 per month, as such excessive compensation has been worked out. Salary could not have been taken just double of the figure what was actually drawn by the deceased. She has further submitted that claims Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the application filed under section 170 of motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8,000 per month, as such excessive compensation has been worked out. Salary could not have been taken just double of the figure what was actually drawn by the deceased. She has further submitted that claims Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the application filed under section 170 of motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The permission ought to have been granted. Rejection of the application in view of the fact that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were proceeded ex parte, permission ought to have been granted. Thus, the appeal may be heard on merits as rejection of the application was on untenable ground. ( 10 ) MR. P. S. Gaharwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, claimants, submitted that the multiplier which is applicable at the age of 45 years is 15. Multiplier of 13 has been applied. He has further submitted that the salary of Rs. 4,000 p. m. was drawn at the relevant time. Immediately, the salary was revised w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996 under the Revision of the Pay Rules, 1998. The pay scale of rs. 2,000-Rs. 3,500, which was revised to rs. 6,500-Rs. 10,500. Apart from that, deceased had all the chances of promotion as his case was ripe for promotion to the post of Dy. Collector. He had 18 years' span of service left ahead. Thus, just compensation has been worked out. Hence, no interference is called for in the quantum of compensation. Rejection of the application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 was justified as written statement was filed by both the owners and of driver of one of the vehicles and also the insurer. There was no allegation of collusion between the owner, driver and claimants, as such for want of permission under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 having been granted by Claims Tribunal, to raise all the defences, this appeal at the behest of the insurer as against the quantum of compensation is not maintainable. ( 11 ) FIRST coming to the question of maintainability of the appeal, at the instance of the insurer: admittedly, an application was filed under section 170 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to raise all the defences. The Claims Tribunal as per the order dated 12. 7. 2002 has rejected the application without mentioning any reason for rejection of the application, particularly when respondent Nos. The Claims Tribunal as per the order dated 12. 7. 2002 has rejected the application without mentioning any reason for rejection of the application, particularly when respondent Nos. 6 and 7 the owner and driver of Maruti van were proceeded ex parte on the same date. Rejection of prayer cannot be said to be justified. It was reason to allow the application not to reject it. It appears that the Claims Tribunal has not applied his mind, however, as fairly stated by Mrs. Amrit Ruprah the remand is not necessary in the circumstances, as only compensation is being assailed on the basis of material available on record of the case. ( 12 ) THE Apex Court in United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Jyotsnaben Sudhirbhai patel, 2003 ACJ 2107 (SC), has laid down that when the Claims Tribunal has passed a cryptic order granting permission without mentioning any reason, appeal filed by the insurer was held to be maintainable. ( 13 ) IN United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shamim Bano, 1995 ACJ 860 (MP), this court considered the order passed by the tribunal of rejection of the prayer of the insurance company to contest on all the grounds. It was held that the rejection of the prayer was illegal. Case was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication, in the appeal filed against the award. Similar view was taken in Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. v. Indu, 1992 ACJ 241 (Pandh ). ( 14 ) THUS we find that this court can look into the correctness of the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal with respect to rejection of the prayer to raise the defence under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. ( 15 ) COMING to question of quantum of compensation: Admittedly, deceased was an Executive Officer, he was in the service of State of Madhya Pradesh. He was holding the post of Naib Tehsildar. His age was 45 years. He was drawing a salary of rs. 4,000 per month. As per the statement of daughter, Manisha Chaturvedi, in the claim petition it was mentioned that his salary was Rs. 3,680 at the time of death. The Claims Tribunal has taken the salary at Rs. 8,000 per month. ( 16 ) IN our opinion, the assessment made by the Claims Tribunal regarding salary of deceased at Rs. 4,000 per month. As per the statement of daughter, Manisha Chaturvedi, in the claim petition it was mentioned that his salary was Rs. 3,680 at the time of death. The Claims Tribunal has taken the salary at Rs. 8,000 per month. ( 16 ) IN our opinion, the assessment made by the Claims Tribunal regarding salary of deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month appears to be on higher side. We find that when we consider the salary, which was revised on the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996, basic salary was to be around rs. 6,500. Increments to be added and salary was to be fixed at next stage in pay scale of Rs. 6,500-Rs. 10,500, which was the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 2,000- rs. 3,500. The revised pay scale came into force from 1. 1. 1996, is not in dispute. Thus the deceased would have been drawing the emolument approximately Rs. 7,000 and dearness allowance. Apart from that he had the chance of promotion also as about 15 years remained in his service career. Thus, we find that income can be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case at rs. 6,600. Thus, on deducting 1/3rd amount which the deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs. 4,400, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,400 x 12 = Rs. 52,800. Multiplier of 15 is applicable. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 52,800 x 15 = Rs. 7,92,000. The total compensation which is awarded by the Claims Tribunal is Rs. 8,39,000, which substantially comes to the same amount. Amount has also to be awarded under the other customary heads. Hence, we are not disturbing the compensation which has been awarded for the aforesaid reasons mentioned in the order. ( 17 ) THUS, the appeal preferred by the insurer is disposed of. No costs. .