JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral)-This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Sirmaur District at Nahan, along the claim petition filed on behalf of the wife and children of late Shri Haripal Singh, who died in an accident at the Excise and Taxation Barrier, Kala Amb. The facts pleaded are that on 7.7.2004, the deceased and one Narinder Singh were posted as Constable and Head Constable at Police Barrier, Kala Amb. Meem Chand was the other person who was posted as Peon there. They were performing their duties when at around 3.45 A.M., a truck bearing registration No. HR-632079 came from Nahan side which was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner by Sohan alias Kala, respondent No. 7, crashed into the police post seriously injuring the deceased and also other persons who were manning the Check Post. Two of the persons, namely Haripal Singh and Narinder Singh died because of the injuries sustained by them. 2. There were seven issues settled on the pleadings of the parties. The learned Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, concluded that death of Haripal Singh was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 7. The evidence purporting to exonerate the liability of the driver was not believed by the learned Tribunal. The deceased, who was serving as a constable, was earning a salary of Rs.6551/- per month as gross pay and Rs.6039/-as net amount receivable after deduction of Life Insurance and Provident Fund etc. Dependency was worked out at Rs.53,040/- annually and a multiplier of 17 was applied since the deceased was 32 years of age. The petition was accordingly allowed and a sum of Rs.9,31,680/-- was granted as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – appellant submits that the amount awarded is excessive and that the Court has not correctly worked out the dependency. This submission requires to be rejected, as it is not open to the Insurance Company to urge this ground. An application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was preferred by the Insurance Company on 23.8.2005 and was rejected by an order of the learned Tribunal on 23.8.2005 holding that the application was not maintainable as the other respondents were contesting the case in earnest. An application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was preferred by the Insurance Company on 23.8.2005 and was rejected by an order of the learned Tribunal on 23.8.2005 holding that the application was not maintainable as the other respondents were contesting the case in earnest. There was nothing on record to establish that the claim was collusive. This order was not challenged by the Company as being illegal. Even otherwise from the record I find that the order of rejection is in accordance with the settled law. 4. The second ground urged is that findings on issue No. 3 dealing with maintainability of the petition on the ground that the driver was challaned for offences under Section 304/323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Tribunal has dealt with this objection in extenso and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801 (SC) and Kaushalya Bai and others v. Ramkishan Kirar and others, 2001 ACJ 1176, it held that this objection was not maintainable. 5. I am not persuaded to take a different view as the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. This submission on behalf of the appellant is rejected. 6. This appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.