JUDGMENT B. N. MAHAPATRA, J. — This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award dated 18.9.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.623 of 2003 by the 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack. 2. The case of the claimant-petitioners is that on 02.07.2003 at about 7 P.M. while the deceased was travelling in a motorcycle from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack a truck bearing registra¬tion No.OAC-6786 came from Bhubaneswar side and dashed his motorcycle on N.H. 5 as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injury. Immediately thereafter the deceased was taken to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, in an unconscious stage. Then he was shifted to Kalinga Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where he succumbed to injury. The claimant’s case was that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. Being Superintendent of Excise, the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and contributing Rs.20,000/- to run his family. At the time of accident the de¬ceased was 44 years old. 3. On the above facts, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehi¬cle holding them liable jointly and severally for untimely death of the deceased on road traffic accident. Opposite party No.1-the owner of the vehicle appeared before the learned Tribunal. He submitted his written statement and admitted the fact of acci¬dent, but denied rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. He contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was high. However, subsequently, opposite party No.1 did not contest the case for which he was set ex parte. Opposite party No.2-Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited resisted the claim and denied the allegation in toto. The stand taken by the opposite party No.2 was that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. The further case of opposite party No.2 was that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Opposite party No.2 also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessively high in comparison to the age, profession, income and financial status of the deceased. Learned Tribunal allowed the opposite party No.2-Insurance Company to take defence in all aspects as provided under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the owner of the vehicle did not contest the case. 4. Learned Tribunal allowed the opposite party No.2-Insurance Company to take defence in all aspects as provided under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the owner of the vehicle did not contest the case. 4. On the above pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed four issues. The petitioners examined two witnesses and also filed certain documents marked as Exts. 1 to 8/1 in support of their claim. Opposite party No.1 examined one witness. Six documents marked as Exts. A, A/1, B, B/1, C and C/1 were admitted into evidence on behalf of opposite parties. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the deceased met with a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal keeping in mind the spirit and manner in which the motor accident claim cases are disposed of in Lok Adalat, applied 12 multiplier and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.7,78,000/-. Besides this, Rs.9,500/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation amounting to Rs.7,77,600/- was awarded with 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of application till realization. Learned Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded compensation, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest in favour of Riba Paikaray petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of Pramod Nayak petitioner No.3 would be kept in shape of unencum¬berable fixed deposit in their respective name in any national¬ized bank for a period of six years. It further directed that interest accrued on such fixed deposit was payable to those claim¬ants on quarterly basis. Another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with pro¬portionate interest in favour of Santanu Kumar Nayak-petitioner No.2 was also ordered to be kept in shape of unencumberable fixed deposit in his name in any nationalized bank for a period of ten years, payable on maturity. The balance sum of Rs.52,500/- with proportionate interest and cost was directed to be released in favour of Riba Paikaray-petitioner No.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company submits that the alleged truck bearing regis¬tration No. OAC-6786 was not involved in the said accident. The balance sum of Rs.52,500/- with proportionate interest and cost was directed to be released in favour of Riba Paikaray-petitioner No.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company submits that the alleged truck bearing regis¬tration No. OAC-6786 was not involved in the said accident. In support of his claim he submits as follows : (a) The alleged occurrence took place on 2.7.2003 at about 7 P.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged by Monoranjan Mohapatra, brother-in-law of the deceased on 3.7.03 against unknown person. (b) The alleged vehicle along with the documents was seized on 20.7.2003 i.e. 18 days after the accident, whereas charge sheet was submitted on 19.12.2003 against the driver of the truck. (c) Monoranjan Mohapatra was not examined as witness. (d) The owner of the vehicle, the respondent No.5 in his state¬ment to the investigator, O.P.W.-I has stated that the vehicle was coming from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack. He further submits that learned Tribunal has not assessed the quantum of compensation in proper manner and the amount of compensation awarded is excessive and contrary to materials available on record. Specially, when the claimants are getting pension @ Rs.7,000/- per month, they have sustained no financial loss. Further submission of the learned counsel is that as per evidence of P.W.2, the staff of the deceased office, the deceased was receiving Rs.5,945/- as his home take salary and, in view of the same, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.8,000/- per month is wrong. Consequently, the basis of assess¬ment of compensation has been challenged as not sustainable. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents on the other hand supports the order of the learned Tribunal. He further submits that the claimants have filed a cross-appeal, which he may be permitted to withdraw. To this effect he files a memo, which is allowed. 7. The admitted facts in this case are that the deceased was killed in a vehicular accident. At the time of death, the deceased was functioning as Superintendent of Excise in the Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubanes¬war. His monthly gross pay was Rs.15,110/-. To this effect he files a memo, which is allowed. 7. The admitted facts in this case are that the deceased was killed in a vehicular accident. At the time of death, the deceased was functioning as Superintendent of Excise in the Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubanes¬war. His monthly gross pay was Rs.15,110/-. The learned Tribunal held that Rs.7,505/- was being deducted from the salary of the deceased towards payment of instalment against loan taken from the SBI and OSCB and Rs.1660/- deducted towards G.P.F. contribu¬tion and other statutory deduction like Professional tax etc. It appears from the order of the learned Tribunal that it has dis¬posed of the case in the manner and spirit the cases are disposed of in Lok Adalat. Accordingly, learned Tribunal applied lesser multiplier. 8. Since the learned Tribunal has disposed of the claim petition keeping in mind the spirit and manner in which the motor accident claim cases are disposed of in Lok Adalat and according¬ly applied lesser multiplier and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper, no interference is called for by this Court. 9. In the result, the order of the learned Tribunal is upheld. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount of compensation of Rs.7,77,500/- along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the 4.8.2003 till the date of realization within eight weeks from today. The learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount of compensation and interest to the respondents-claimants in the manner it disbursed the awarded amount in its order. The Insurance Company is entitled to get refund of the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- with accrued interest from this count on production of the receipt showing deposit of the compensation amount along with interest before the learned Tribunal. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.