JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.03.1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot [for short, "the Tribunal"] in M.A.C.P. No. 161 of 1982 whereby, the said claim petition was partly allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under; 2.1 On 03.10.1981 while respondent no. 1, original claimant, was going to the agricultural field on foot in the afternoon hours, a motor-cycle, bearing registration No. GRC - 1482, driven by original opponent no. 1 and of the ownership of original opponent no. 2, dashed the respondent no. 1. As a result of the said accident, respondent no. 1 sustained severe bodily injuries. The said motorcycle was insured with respondent no. 2 - original opponent no. 3. 2.2 The father of respondent no. 1, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interests and costs. In the said petition, the opponents filed their written statement. 2.3 The Tribunal framed the issues and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition, by passing the impugned judgment and award. Hence, this Appeal and the cross-objections. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is contented on behalf of the appellants that the complaint with respect to the alleged incident in question was filed after a long delay of almost nine months, which creates serious doubts about its genuineness. However, from the evidence on record, it transpires that before the Tribunal not a single question was put to the claimant regarding the factum of occurrence of the accident in question. In fact, it has come out from the record that neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle in question had stepped into the witness box of the Tribunal to lead any evidence. They could have appeared before the Tribunal and denied the aspect of accident. However, that has not been done, which, ultimately, led the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against them. Moreover, the aforesaid contention was not raised by the appellants before the Tribunal and it has been raised, for the first time, only before this Court and therefore, it does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, the said contention raised by the appellants is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 4. Moreover, the aforesaid contention was not raised by the appellants before the Tribunal and it has been raised, for the first time, only before this Court and therefore, it does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, the said contention raised by the appellants is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 4. So far as the aspect of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly loss of income at Rs. 75/- on the basis of the medical evidence on record that the claimant had sustained 20% permanent partial disability and that she was a minor child aged 7 years at the time when the accident took place. Keeping in mind the age, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 15 years and partly allowed the claim petition. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Since the Appeal has been dismissed, the cross-objections shall not survive. They also stand disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.