JUDGMENT The insurer of a vehicle, owned by the 6th respondent herein, is the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents, respondent NO.3 is the sister and respondents 4 and 5 are the brothers of late C. Raju. They filed O.P. NO. 607 of 2000, in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Anantapur, claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as compensation. They pleaded that the deceased was working as a cleaner on a lorry owned by the 6th respondent, and insured with the appellant, and was being paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards salary and Rs.501- per" day, towards batta. It was alleged that on 28-4-1999, the deceased was proceeding on the lorry, and when the driver applied sudden brake in a rash and negligent manner, he fell down and died instantly. The deceased was said to be 21 years old, when he died. After finding that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,200/-, towards compensation, to respondents 1 and 2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the death of the deceased occurred, only on account of the careless and negligent manner, in which he sat in the lorry, and since neither he was hit by the lorry, nor suffered any injuries attributable to it, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. She further contends that though the age of the mother of the deceased was to be taken into account, in the matter of selecting the proper multiplier, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased, into account. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5, on the other hand, submits that the deceased died during the course of employment, that too, by falling from the running lorry, and in that view of the matter, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. He contends that the Tribunal had appreciated the matter from the proper perspective, both while recording a finding as to the cause of death, and determination of compensation, and that no interference is called for with the award. 4. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that it cannot be held liable, since the deceased has fallen from the lorry, on account of his own negligence. 4. The first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that it cannot be held liable, since the deceased has fallen from the lorry, on account of his own negligence. It is not in dispute that the deceased was employed with the 6th respondent, and that he died during the course of his employment. A perusal of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short" the Act"), discloses that while an insurer can be held liable to pay the compensation to third parties or passengers in a vehicle, only if the death or bodily injury arises out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, the liability on account of the death or bodily injuries of driver or other employees engaged on the vehicle, would arise if the death takes place or the injuries are sustained "during the course of employment". Therefore, it would be sufficient if the death or injuries to the driver or cleaner had occurred, during the course of employment, irrespective of the fact whether they were caused on account of any hit or touch by the vehicle. This important and vital distinction needs to be kept in mind. Further, the word "accident" is neither defined in the Act, nor it is capable of being defined. 5. Another aspect of the matter is that an insurer can avoid liability only if it pleads and proves the grounds specified in subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act. The circumstance that an employee died on account of the fall from the vehicle, etc., does not find place in the said provision. Therefore, It cannot be said that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation, on account of the death of the deceased, in the instant case. 6. The next contention is about the quantum of compensation. Basically, the record does not disclose that the appellant has obtained permission of the Tribunal, under Section 170 of the Act, to contest the matter on the question of quantum; the objection is only as to application of the multiplier based on the age of the deceased. It is true that while determining the compensation payable on account of the death of an unmarried person, the age of the younger of the parents, must be taken into account. It is true that while determining the compensation payable on account of the death of an unmarried person, the age of the younger of the parents, must be taken into account. The deceased was aged about 21 years and his mother, the 1st respondent, was aged about 48 years, at the relevant point of time. The suitable multiplier must have been selected, on the basis of the age of the 1st respondent. The Tribunal applied the multiplier 18. In the table furnished in Schedule-II, which is referable to Section 163-A of the Act, the multiplier applicable to a person of 48 years of age, is 13. Even assuming that a reassessment must be undertaken, it is to be noticed that the Tribunal took the income of the deceased only at Rs. 1,0001/ per month, but totally excluding the amount of batta of RS.50/- per day. Had the same been taken into account, the monthly income of the deceased would have been Rs. 2,500/-, and after excluding 1/3rd of it, his contribution to the family would have been around Rs.1,600/- per month. The annual income comes to Rs.19,200/- If so calculated, the compensation payable to the respondents 1 to 5 would far exceed the amount awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this court does not find any basis to interfere with the award. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal awarded any amount, over and above the entitlement of the respondents 1 to 5. 7. Hence the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.