ORDER Heard finally with the consent of counsel for parties. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the Insurer aggrieved by Award dated 30.7.2002 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 109/2001. 2. On account of death of Dr. Prabhat Kulshrestha, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 14,18,000 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. In case amount is not paid within a month, it was to carry the penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Dissatisfied thereby, the appeal has been preferred by the Insurer. 3. Shri Malhotra has submitted that negligence was not on part of driver of truck, finding as to negligence recorded by the Tribunal is not proper, excessive compensation has been awarded, penal rate of interest could not have been imposed. 4. Shri Kripal Singh, learned counsel appearing for, claimants has supported the award, cross objections have also been preferred. 5. Firstly coming to the question of negligence, the Tribunal while deciding Issue No.1 has dealt with the matter elaborately in para 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the award, evidence was adduced by the claimants showing negligence on part of driver of the truck, no evidence in rebuttal was adduced, driver of the truck was not examined by the insurer nor any other evidence in rebuttal was adduced, consequently, the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to negligence of driver of truck is found to be unassailable, same is hereby confirmed. 6. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded, age of deceased was 50 years, he was working as a Medical Officer in the services of State of M.P. He was drawing emoluments of Rs. 13,590/per month, salary was revised to the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-. Considering the revision of salary with effect from 1995 and future prospects, the Tribunal has assessed the salary at Rs. 16,000/- per month, that is proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. l/3rd amount has been deducted towards the self expenditure of the deceased which is also considerable amount. Multiplier of 11 has been applied, that is appropriate as per schedule. Consequently, it cannot be said that excessive compensation has been awarded. 7. 16,000/- per month, that is proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. l/3rd amount has been deducted towards the self expenditure of the deceased which is also considerable amount. Multiplier of 11 has been applied, that is appropriate as per schedule. Consequently, it cannot be said that excessive compensation has been awarded. 7. With respect to fastening of penal rate of interest, we find justification in the submission raised by Shri Malhotra. No such term in terrorum should have been imposed award being executable. The part of the award directing penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum is hereby set aside. 8. Resultantly, we find that there is no merit in the appeal or the cross-objections as reasonable compensation has been worked out and awarded by the Tribunal. The cross objections and appeal are dismissed with aforesaid modification. No costs.