1. This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment-Award dated 28th of April, 2011 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar in a claim petition tilled as Khaliq Dar and another v. Union of India and another hereinafter for short as impugned award', on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. BRIEF FACTS 2. Claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before the MACT, Srinagar, in terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for short as Act, on 12th of May, 2008, being the victims of vehicular accident and sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 crore on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle (BSF LP truck) had driven the vehicle rashly -and negligently on 24th of March, 2008 at Renji Srinagar-Baramulla National Highway and in the process hit the deceased Mohammad Yaqoob Dar who sustained and succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was a businessman by profession (dealing with Carpets and fresh fruits as forwarding agent). The deceased would have been earning Rs. 60.000/- per month in future. 3. Appellant-insurer filed written statement and following issues came to be framed:- 1. "Whether on 24th of March, 2008 Mohammad Yaqoob Dar, walking on the correct side of the road on National Highway, at Renji, was hit by a BSF LP Truck driven by the driver rashly and negligently, causing thereby fatal injuries to the deceased resulting in his death? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondents, if yes, how? OPR1-2 3. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to? OPP. 4. Relief." 4. Claimants were directed and they have examined witnesses namely Abdul Majid SHO P/s Rattan, Gh. Qadir Dar, Abdul Gaffar Dar, Gh. Hassan Khan, ASI Gh. Mohd and Abdul Khaliq Dar appeared as his own witness. Appellants have examined three witnesses namely Arun Kumar Panth, Sumeer Singh and Rajinder Singh. 5. Brief Resume of the evidence of the witnesses of claimants/respondents. 6. All the witnesses have deposed that a vehicle of appellants/LP Truck of BSF was driven by its driver rashly and negligently on 24th March, 2008 on National Highway Road while going from Srinagar to Baramulla and hit the deceased Mohammad Yaqoob Dar who was walking on correct side of the road. 6. All the witnesses have deposed that a vehicle of appellants/LP Truck of BSF was driven by its driver rashly and negligently on 24th March, 2008 on National Highway Road while going from Srinagar to Baramulla and hit the deceased Mohammad Yaqoob Dar who was walking on correct side of the road. Investigating Officer and SHO Abdul Majid also conducted investigation and came to the conclusion that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and that they have taken the witnesses to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sopore who recorded their statements. The deceased was stated to be earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. ISSUE WISE FINDING Issue No. 1 7. Investigating Officer as well as SHO along with other witnesses of claimants/respondents have proved that offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently on 24th March, 2008, hit the deceased Mohammad Yaqoob who sustained and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the finding returned by MACT is legally perfect and needs no interference. Issue No. 2 8. Appellants had to discharge onus of this issue which they have failed to do. However, I have gone through the claim petition and the judgment-impugned award and I am of the considered view that claim petition is very much maintainable in terms of Section 166 of the Act, therefore, the finding returned on the said issue is upheld. Issue No. 3 9. The claimants have averred and proved that deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident and the just and appropriate multiplier applicable is 18. But the Tribunal has applied-multiplier 7 only and the claimants have not questioned the same. Thus I deem it proper not to alter the same. 10. There is ample evidence on the file that deceased was a businessman and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from carpet business and also from fruit business. The Tribunal has after making guess work held that dependents have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 8000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd as personal expenses, the claimants/respondents have been held to have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 64,000/- per annum. The claimants have also not challenged the same; therefore, it would be appropriate to keep it unaltered. 11. Viewed thus the impugned award is held to be well reasoned and legally valid. 12. 64,000/- per annum. The claimants have also not challenged the same; therefore, it would be appropriate to keep it unaltered. 11. Viewed thus the impugned award is held to be well reasoned and legally valid. 12. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Send down the record along with the copy of the judgment.