ORDER N.V. Ramana, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Order in O.P.No.143 of 2001 dated 27.04.2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahbubnagar. 2. The O.P.No.143 of 2001 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, who died in a road accident occurred on 08.09.2000. The accident has taken place while the deceased N.G.Hemanth Kumar was travelling in a jeep bearing No.KA 05P 2086, owned by the company, in which he was working at the time of accident, from Zahirabad to Bangalore. When the said jeep was proceeding in the limits of Jallapuram in Mahabubnagar District at about 11.45 p.m., the jeep dashed against the stationed lorry, due to which the deceased died. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs. 20,97,796/-. 3. The trial Court after consideration of the evidence and salary of deceased etc., awarded an amount of Rs. 16,49,840/- and while granting the said compensation, the trial Court has considered that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, which was insured with the present appellant company and also taken into consideration of the age of the deceased as 36 and applied multiplier 16'. The lower Tribunal after considering the salary certificate EX.A.11 held that his annual contribution to his family is Rs. 1,01,240/- and by applying multiplier 16' awarded compensation of '{ 16,19,840/- and also awarded another amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of estate, ultimately an amount of Rs. 16,49;840/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 7.5% P.A. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant herein is that the tribunal erred in fixing the liability against the appellant-insurance company. 5. He further argued that as per the decision rendered in "Smt. Sarla Venna and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) =.2009 (4) SCJ 91 = 2009 AIR SCW 4992, the multiplier 15' has to be applied, but the lower Tribunal applied multiplier 16'. 6. 5. He further argued that as per the decision rendered in "Smt. Sarla Venna and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) =.2009 (4) SCJ 91 = 2009 AIR SCW 4992, the multiplier 15' has to be applied, but the lower Tribunal applied multiplier 16'. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as per the evidence of P.W.2, the negligence is on the part of the driver of the lorry, which was stationed or parked on the highway and there is no rash and negligence on the part of the jeep driver to fix the liability against him. 7. It is his alternative submission if at all, there is negligence; the negligence is on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. So, there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry also. As such, the compensation has to be apportioned between both the lorry and jeep drivers. 8. To appreciate such contention, we have examined the evidence placed before us. In FIR Ex.A.1, which was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clearly stated by P.W.2, who has lodged the FIR, that the accident has taken place because of the non-observation of the jeep driver about the parking of the lorry and in confusion in the night time, the accident has taken place and after coming to know about the death of the deceased, the jeep driver ran away 9. In the chief affidavit filed by P.W.2, he has stated that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent, carelessness, wrong parking of the driver of the lorry and also due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. 10. In the cross-examination, F.W.2 has stated that he did not allege negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. Except this evidence, there is no other evidence on record to substantiate the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. The appellant - Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the jeep to establish their stand that there is contributory negligence. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the allegation that there is contributory negligence on the part of drivers of both vehicles, it cannot be believed. 12. 11. The appellant - Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the jeep to establish their stand that there is contributory negligence. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the allegation that there is contributory negligence on the part of drivers of both vehicles, it cannot be believed. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that the jeep driver himself has surrendered before the police and admitted his guilt that he is negligent in driving. 13. Taking into consideration of the facts, we feel that there is no material to take a different view than that of the view taken by the lower tribunal. Hence, we are not going to interfere with the said finding of the tribunal. 14. So far as the 2nd contention is concerned, as per Smt Sarla Verma's case (referred supra), if the age of the deceased is 36' years, the multiplier 15' has to be applied, but the tribunal applied multiplier 16'. Hence, multiplier 15' has to be applied. Accordingly, the contribution of deceased to his family is Rs. 1,01,240 X 15 = Rs. 15,18,600/-. 15. The appeal is partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the contribution of deceased to his family from Rs. 16,19,840/- to Rs. 15,18,600/-. In all other aspects, the findings of the tribunal are confirmed.