Hon'ble MHATRE, J.—The appeal has been filed by the Insurance company contending that the insurance company had been indemnified by the owner of the truck and, therefore, was not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is also the case of the insurance company that the Tribunal has awarded the lump-sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- without any reason, without there being any discussion on record to indicate why this amount was awarded. The other ground urged in the appeal is there was no evidence to indicate that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as claimed by the applicant who was his mother. 2. Admittedly, the accident occurred when the deceased was travelling in a truck owned by his father. The relations between the parents of the deceased are strained and the parents had been living separately for 7 or 8 years prior to the accident. The mother i.e. the claimant was being given Rs.2,000/- per month by the deceased which he earned as the driver. On this basis, she claimed an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The claim was contested by the insurance company on the ground that there was an indemnity bond furnished by the owner of the truck and, therefore it was not liable. 4. The Tribunal having considered the evidence on record has awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation together with 12% interest to be paid jointly and severally by the owner of the insurance company. The Tribunal had earlier directed the opponents i.e. the owner and the insurance company to pay Rs.15,000/-by way of no fault liability. The learned advocate for the insurance company urges that the award is unsustainable since there is no reason given as to why the indemnity bond which was produced on record has not been accepted by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has accepted that the claimants was being paid Rs.1,500/- per month by the deceased. It is submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to substantiate this claim of the applicant. It is then submitted that the Tribunal has not discussed why the compensation to be paid to the claimant should be Rs.75,000/- and not any other figure. The learned advocate submits that there is no reason for awarding this lump-sum payment and, therefore, she submits that the appeal should be allowed. It is then submitted that the Tribunal has not discussed why the compensation to be paid to the claimant should be Rs.75,000/- and not any other figure. The learned advocate submits that there is no reason for awarding this lump-sum payment and, therefore, she submits that the appeal should be allowed. 5. Mr. Lokesh, appearing for Respondent No.1, submits that the Tribunal has rightly discarded the indemnity bond since it was not proved. He also submits that the Tribunal has in fact erred in awarding only Rs.75,000/- and not a higher amount as the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court in which the multiplier must be considered by the Tribunal before compensation is awarded. He submits further that the appeal should be dismissed by awarding only Rs.75,000/- to the applicant. She has been deprived of a higher amount of compensation. 6. The Tribunal, in my opinion, has erred in granting only an amount of Rs. 75,000/-. However, there is no appeal filed by the claimant and, therefore, I need not go into that aspect. It is now well settled that for awarding compensation it is expected that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will adopt the multiplier method for calculating the same. Had this method been adopted by the Tribunal, in all probability a far higher amount would have been awarded. Apart from this, the contention of the learned advocate for the insurance company that the indemnity bond furnished by the owner of the truck indemnifying the insurance company against any claim made in respect of the accident also cannot be accepted. The indemnity bond though placed on record has not been proved by the insurance company. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly discarded the same. 7. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the award of the Tribunal which in fact is much lower than the amount which the claimant would have been entitled to. 8. Appeal dismissed.