JUDGMENT A.S.NAIDU, J. : The common judgment and award of compensation dated 31.8.98 passed by Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case Nos.278/75 of 1989-88, 279/1986,245/78 of 1989-88 and 198/245/77 of 1993-92 of 1988 is assailed in the aforesaid five Misc. Appeals. The accident as well as the facts and points of law in all the cases being one and the same, and by consent of all the parties, the five appeals were heard together. 2. On 5.1.1988 the ill fated motor vehicle accident oc¬curred on National Highway No. V. Dr. Sahadev Sahu, Professor in Surgery of S.C.B. Medical College-Hospital, Cuttack, his mother Bisakha Sahu, daughter, Sabita Kumari Sahu, who was serving as a Lecturer and Sri G.M. Mohanty, an Officer belonging to Indian Administrative Service and friend of Dr. Sahu were travelling in the Maruti Car of Dr. Sahu bearing Regn. No.OIC-3030. The Car was being driven by Dr. Sahadev Sahu himself. In between Bhubaneswar and Cuttack near Lakheswar Temple (Phulnakhara Crossing) a pas¬senger bus coming from Bhubaneswar in high speed tried to over¬take the Car. While doing so, as ill luck would have it, it gave a dash to the Car from the back side and due to such impact the driver of the car (Dr. Sahu) lost balance and the car was pushed to a distance. At that juncture a truck bearing Regn. No.OSC 9625 which was being driven from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar in a breaknake speed collided with the Maruti Car head-on. Consequently, the Car virtually was sandwiched and was smashed due to impact of the accident caused by the offending truck and the bus. Due to the accident all the passengers of the Car sustained grievous in¬juries and succumbed to the same on the spot. 3. Misc. Case No.278/75/1989-88 was filed by the mother of deceased Sabita Kumari Sahu claiming a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs mainly on the ground that the accident was caused due to rash and negli¬gent driving of the Truck and the Bus thereby causing death of her daughter who was a spinster aged about 26 years at the time of death and was working as a Lecturer in Zoology in Basic Science College, Bhubaneswar, drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per month. It was further averred that was selected and had been appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology in Dhenkanal College. It was further averred that was selected and had been appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology in Dhenkanal College. It is averred that her daughter was not only a supporter to the family, but also being a brilliant student was a guide for her younger brother and sisters. It is further averred that she was contributing her entire income for the, family maintenance. 4. Misc. Case No.279/76 of 1989/1988 was filed by the widow, sons, daughters of the deceased Dr. Sahadev Sahu claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- on the ground that the deceased at the time of his death was serving as Professor of Surgery in S.C.B. Medical College-Hospital, Cuttack. He was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month besides Rs.500/- per month from other sources out of his own profession being a reputed Surgeon. He was 54 years of age and was quite hale and hearty. On the date of his unfortunate death he had four years’ service left and was expect¬ed to rise to the post of Director of Health. It was averred that the deceased was contributing his entire income for the mainte¬nance of the family and education of his children and the family had lost the dependency and was also deprived of the love and affection of the deceased for all times to come. The death, it is alleged, also caused untold misery and mental shock to the family members. 5. Misc. Case No.245/77 of 1992/1988 was filed by Kelu Charan Sahu, the husband of late Bisakha Sahoo (mother of Dr. Sahu) claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/ - mainly on the ground that due to the death of his wife at his ripe, he had lost his life companion and suffered mental shock and agony. It was further averred that the deceased was looking after the cows and buffalos and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. 6. After receiving notice Jadumani Behera, the owner of the Truck filed his written statement, but then he did not con¬test the case. Biswanath Maharana, the owner of the offending Bus filed his written statement, but thereafter did not take part in the hear¬ing. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. the insurer of both the vehicles, i.e, the Truck and Bus filed its written statement vaguely denying all the averments of the claimants and taking a stand that it was not liable to pay any compensation. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. the insurer of both the vehicles, i.e, the Truck and Bus filed its written statement vaguely denying all the averments of the claimants and taking a stand that it was not liable to pay any compensation. It was further averred that as the name of the owner of the Maruti Car in which all the deceased were travelling was deleted from the cause title at the instance of the claimants, the claim petitions were not maintainable. 7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as five issues. To substantiate their case the claimants got two witnesses examined and exhibited ten documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. 8. The Tribunal after discussing the evidence both, oral and documentary, under Issue Nos.2,3 and 4 came to the conclusion that the Maruti Car driven by the deceased Dr. Sahadev Sahu was neither rash nor negligent and that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of drivers of the Truck bearing Regn. No.OSC-9625 and the Bus bearing Regn. No.OAU-477. Under Issue No.5 after discussing the evidence the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that at the time of accident the drivers of the offending Bus and the Truck were possessing valid driving licence and as such the owners of both the said vehicles were liable to pay the compensation. It was further held that the offending truck OSC-9625 was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under Policy No.315101/3/278/289/87 and the said policy was valid till 11.1.1988. Similarly offending Bus bearing Regn. No.OAU 477 was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under policy No.315101/10/644/5539/87 and the said policy was valid upto 11.6.1988. The accident in question admit¬tedly having occurred on 5.1.1988, both the insurance policies were valid and had covered the liability and as such the Insur¬ance Company was liable to pay the compensation. On the basis of such conclusion the Tribunal quantified the compensation. 9. In Misc. Case No.278/75 of 1989-1988 the mother of Sabita Kumari Sahu claimed compensation for the death of her daughter. Sabita was aged about 26 years by the time of her untimely death in the accident. It was alleged that she was working as Lecturer in Zoology and was getting a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/-. 9. In Misc. Case No.278/75 of 1989-1988 the mother of Sabita Kumari Sahu claimed compensation for the death of her daughter. Sabita was aged about 26 years by the time of her untimely death in the accident. It was alleged that she was working as Lecturer in Zoology and was getting a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/-. Considering the fact that after her death the family had lost an earning member and was put under very sorrowful conditions and the fact that being selected by PSC she had got appointment as Lecturer in a Government College, the Tribunal taking half of the salary towards contribution and applying ‘15’ multiplier and also taking into consideration the loss of love and affection and hopes/ambitions of the mother as well as mental shock and agony caused to the claimant awarded a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- in lump sum. 10. Assailing the said judgment and compensation the Insur¬ance Company has filed M.A. No.556/1999. On the other hand, the claimant has preferred M.A. No.760/98. The award is assailed by the Insurance Company mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the earning of the deceased and applied a wrong multiplier inasmuch as the deceased being a spinster, the age of her mother ought to have been taken into consideration. Further the Tribunal has not considered or discussed the vital piece of evidence like M.V.I. Report filed by the appellant, which according to the counsel for the Insurance Company, reveals that the accident occurred due to the carelessness and negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car and the driver of the Bus and Truck were no way responsible for the accident. 11. According to the claimant however the deceased was a young lady, well qualified, had a bright future and was serving as a Lecturer at Regional College, Bhubaneswar and getting a consolidated salary of Rs.2,000/- per month and as such the amount awarded by the Tribunal, that too, without any interest is unjust, illegal and should be enhanced suitably. 12. Misc. Case No.279/76 of 1989-88 relates to compensation claimed by the widow and children of Dr. Sahadev Sahu who was serving as Professor in Surgery in S.C.B. Medical College-Hospi¬tal, Cuttack and was driving his own vehicle, i.e. Maruti Car bearing Regn. No.OIC-3030. In the accident he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. 12. Misc. Case No.279/76 of 1989-88 relates to compensation claimed by the widow and children of Dr. Sahadev Sahu who was serving as Professor in Surgery in S.C.B. Medical College-Hospi¬tal, Cuttack and was driving his own vehicle, i.e. Maruti Car bearing Regn. No.OIC-3030. In the accident he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. According to the evidence of P.W. 1 the son of the deceased, who is also a claim¬ant, the deceased was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month besides earning Rs.500/- per month from private practice. Relying upon the salary certificate Ext.8, last pay certificate, Ext.9, and surmising that he would be able to earn till 65 years, apply¬ing ‘10’ multiplier the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,50,000/- in lump sum as compensation. The said award is assailed by the Insurance Company in M.A. No.570/1999 on identical grounds as in M.A. No.556/1998 to the effect that Report of the M.V.I. was not taken into consideration and the Tribunal acted illegally in holding that the driver of the Car had no negligence. It is also averred that the interest awarded @ 12% per annum is excessive. On the other hand, accord¬ing to the claimants, the Tribunal did not take into considera¬tion of all the facts and the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate: It is stated that deceased Dr. Sahadev Sahu was a Professor of Surgery and he was a renowned Doctor, he was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- and earning Rs.500/ - per month from private practice and as such the Tribunal acted illegally and with mate¬rial irregularity in not awarding at least Rs.5 lakhs. 13. Misc. Case No.245/77 was filed with regard to the death of Bisakha by her husband. The said deceased was the mother of Dr. Sahadev Sahu. The Tribunal after discussing the materials available awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The Insurance Company has assailed the said award virtually on the same grounds, but then the claimant has not preferred any appeal. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence and materials available. According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the claim¬ants have not come to the Court with clean hands. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satyam reported in 2000 (II) TAC 613 Mr. According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the claim¬ants have not come to the Court with clean hands. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satyam reported in 2000 (II) TAC 613 Mr. Dutta forcefully submitted that fraud had been practised on the Court inasmuch the claimants have not disclosed all the facts. It is also stated that the Tribunal acted illegally and with materi¬al irregularity in not considering the report submitted by the M.V.I. which indicated that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car, i.e. Dr. Sahadev Sahu, and not due to the negligence of the other two vehicles. It is further submitted that the neither the owner of the Maruti Car nor the insurer were impleaded as parties and as such all the claim petitions were liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 15. These submissions are strongly repudiated by learned counsel for the claimants. It is submitted that, evidence clearly establishes that the offending Bus tried to overtake the Maruti Car, and in the process dashed the back of the car, and causing imbalance at that juncture the offending truck coming from the front colluded with the Car, thus the same was sandwiched between the two vehicles. According to Mr. Mohanty the written statement filed by the Insurance Company was very vague. No specific plea was taken. That apart no petition was field under Section 170 of the M.V. Act and as such the Insurance Company is precluded from challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. Mr. Mohanty forcefully submitted that the insurer for the reasons best known did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. It is stated that the M.V.I’s Report is not a substantive evidence. It is based upon hearsay and at best it can be treated as an opinion. But then the said document cannot be ipso facto admitted into evidence. No steps were taken by the Insurance Company to examine any witness, even the M.V.I, to prove his report. The reasonings stated in the report are only the opinion arrived at by the M.V.I. after visit and that too after a long lapse of time. The same cannot be treated to be sacrosanct. The M.V.I. having not been examined as a witness and not cross-examined, the report has absolutely no evidentiary value. The reasonings stated in the report are only the opinion arrived at by the M.V.I. after visit and that too after a long lapse of time. The same cannot be treated to be sacrosanct. The M.V.I. having not been examined as a witness and not cross-examined, the report has absolutely no evidentiary value. Even otherwise no steps were taken to get the report exhibited and the belated plea raised before this Court should not be accepted. 16. Perusal of the written statement reveals that the Insurance Company has vaguely denied the allegations. It has also, for the reasons best known, refrained itself from adducing any oral or documentary evidence. Thus the case of the claimants virtually remains un-rebutted. The ground taken before this Court centres round, non consideration of the report submitted by the M.V.I., but then the report has not been exhibited and no steps were taken by the Insurance Company to get the M.V.I. examined as a witness to prove that any fraud has been practised by the claimants. Without substantiating such allegations, the submis¬sion cannot be entertained. 17. Here is a case where no steps were taken by the Insur¬ance Company either before the Tribunal or before this Court to substantiate their plea that fraud was in fact practised. Law is well settled that fraud is a fact, that has to be established by cogent evidence. The report submitted by the MVI basically speaks of mechanical defects leading to the accident. The MVI was not an eye witness to the accident. It is not known as to when the MVI conducted spot investigation. It is also not known as to whether the MVI examined and/or took the statement of any eye witness. The question as it appears from the evidence reveals that the car driven by the owner was proceeding towards Cuttack. The offending bus bearing Regn. No.OAU-477 tried to overtake the same. That itself indicates that the car was proceeding in a reasonable speed. But then while overtaking the car the rear portion of the Bus dashed against the car and the car was pushed further thereby causing imbalance. At that juncture, the Truck came from front and dashed against the car. Consequently the car was sandwiched by the Bus and the Truck and was smashed. These facts are also substantiated by the F.I.R. and the charge sheet (Exts. 1 & 2). At that juncture, the Truck came from front and dashed against the car. Consequently the car was sandwiched by the Bus and the Truck and was smashed. These facts are also substantiated by the F.I.R. and the charge sheet (Exts. 1 & 2). P.W.2 was an eye witness to the accident. He was one of the passengers travelling in the offending Bus bearing Regn. No.OAU-477. According to him, the Maruti Car was moving ahead of the Bus and the Bus while trying to overtake the car dashed against it from behind. At that moment the Truck bearing Regn. No.OSC-9625, travelling in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Car which was pushed to its right due to the impact and both the offending vehicles smashed the car. There is nothing to disbe¬lieve the statement of P.W.2. Thus the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Bus and the Truck is justified and in consonance with the evidence and needs no interference. 18. The only other question which needs to be considered by this Court is with regard to the computation of the quantum of compensation. According to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimants, no petition having been filed under Section 170 of the M.V. Act by the Insurance Company this Court may not interfere with the compensation. However law is well settled that the compensation awarded cannot be treated to be a bonanza but should be in consonance with the facts and circumstances of each case. 19. Admittedly in Misc. Case No.278/75 of 1989/88 the deceased was an unmarried lady. She was well qualified and was working as a Lecturer in Regional College, Bhubaneswar and was selected by PSC for being appointed as Lecture in Government College. According to Mr. Dutta the deceased being unmarried, the Tribunal acted illegally in applying” 15” multiplier. In fact taking into consideration the age of the mother, the right multi¬plier should have been “11”. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the age and other factors awarded a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-, but then thereafter reduced the same to Rs.1,70,000/-. Surprisingly, the Tribunal has not awarded any interest. Admittedly, the widowed mother has not only lost her earning daughter but also her husband in the unfortunate acci¬dent. The accident occurred in the year 1988. Nineteen years have passed in the meanwhile. Surprisingly, the Tribunal has not awarded any interest. Admittedly, the widowed mother has not only lost her earning daughter but also her husband in the unfortunate acci¬dent. The accident occurred in the year 1988. Nineteen years have passed in the meanwhile. Considering all the materials available in a spirit of Lok Adalat this Court feels that a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) in lump sum would be just, proper and equitable. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No.760/98 and Misc. Appeal No.556/99 are disposed of with a direction that the claimant of the said cases shall be entitled to a lump sum com¬pensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs). It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within eight weeks hence, they shall be entitled to interest @ 7 %% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 20. In Misc. Case No.279/76 of 1989-88 the deceased was a Professor of Surgery of S.C.B. Medical College-Hospital, Cuttack. The salary certificate, Ext.8 and last pay certificate, Ext.9, clearly reveal that his monthly salary was Rs.6,000/-. He being a Government Servant, there is no dispute with regard to his salary and age. The Tribunal assessing the monthly contribution of the deceased towards his family to be Rs.3,500/- and applying ‘10’ multiplier awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/ -. There¬after considering uncertainty of life deducted Rs. 70,000/- therefrom and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in lump sum. According to Mr. Dutta the compensation is excessive whereas according to Mr. Mohanty, the compensation should be at least Rs. 4,80,000/-. 21. I have considered the submissions made. The Tribunal while awarding a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- has not awarded any inter¬est. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that “the claims Tribunal while allowing a claim of compensations may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be plaid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making claim as may be specified. In the case at hand, the accident occurred in the years 1988. Nineteen years have passed in the meanwhile. In the case at hand, the accident occurred in the years 1988. Nineteen years have passed in the meanwhile. Considering the materials available the right multiplier applicable, the age and status of the deceased being a professor of Surgery of SCB Medical College-Hospital, Cuttack, a renowned doctor, this Court feels that compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application would be just, proper and equitable and this Court directs accordingly. 22. So far as M.A. No.571/99 is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal after discussing the entire materials awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- in Misc. Case No.245/77 of 1989/88. The deceased was the wife of the claimant who is an old person. The claimant has lost the company of his wife apart from suffer¬ing mental shock, agony, etc. Considering the submissions and other facts, this Court feels that the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and needs no interfer¬ence. Consequently M.A. No.571/99 is dismissed. 23. With the aforesaid observations, all the five appeals are disposed of. Appeals disposed of.