Judgment : The present first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15/12/2005 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.42 of 2003 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha whereby the appellant and respondent No.5 were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,500/- to the claimants-petitioners with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2) Facts briefly stated are as under – Deceased Vitthal Korde was a labour, earning about Rs. 3000/- per month. On 21/12/2002 his services were engaged by appellant herein and Vitthal was sent to Jam village by appellant on motorcycle bearing No.MH-32 F-2468 belonging to appellant and while returning, one auto rickshaw bearing No.MH-31-1981 owned by Sunil Namdev Nagose, which driven rashly and negligently, gave dash to motorcycle, which was driven by Vitthal Korde. In the result, Vitthal had sustained serious injuries to which he succumbed. 3) A criminal case was registered against Sunil Namdev Nagose, the driver of auto rickshaw. Claim was lodged against appellant and said Sunil Namdev Nagose on the ground that they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The appellant and original non-applicant No.2 Sunil Nagose had denied their liability. Evidence was led before the Tribunal. 4) The learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that Khandeshwar Lambat, appellant herein, had sent Vitthal through his motorcycle bearing No.MH-31 F-2468 to Jam village for casual work. The motorcycle was dashed by an auto rickshaw, which was driven rashly and negligently. It is contended by widow of deceased Vitthal that since her husband was serving with Khandeshwar Lambat (appellant herein) both Khandeshwar Lambat as well as Sunil Nagose (respondent No.5 herein) were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to her on account of death, caused by motor vehicle accident. The evidence led by the parties read along with documents produced before the Tribunal such as copy of FIR (Exhibit-26), spot panchanama (Exhibit-27), registration particulars of the offending vehicle (Exhibit-30) as also Exhibits-28 and 29 disclosing that Vitthal had died as a result of motor vehicle accident. It was further revealed from the evidence that Vitthal used to take motorcycle of Khandeshwar Lambat (appellant herein) for the work of appellant. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal observed that appellant had sent deceased Vitthal for his urgent work. It was further revealed from the evidence that Vitthal used to take motorcycle of Khandeshwar Lambat (appellant herein) for the work of appellant. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal observed that appellant had sent deceased Vitthal for his urgent work. Learned Chairman after appreciation of evidence on record, observed that appellant had not led convincing evidence and withheld evidence of his relative Vinayak which led to adverse inference against appellant. Under these circumstances, there was evidence that appellant had sent deceased Vitthal by giving his motorcycle. It was but natural that appellant could not have escaped from his liability to pay compensation in absence of any insurance policy for the motor vehicle given to deceased Vitthal. Bald allegation was made that deceased Vitthal had consumed alcohol, but there was no medical evidence to support such bald allegation. Thus, the allegation was rightly brushed aside by the learned Chairman of the Tribunal. 5) It is also pertinent to note that claim was under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein question as to who was at fault would not arise, similar to the claim based on no fault liability arising under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When it was disclosed in the evidence that deceased Vitthal was serving with the appellant, who gave his motorcycle to the deceased Vitthal for the urgent work of appellant. It is contended on behalf of appellant that claim could have been under Workmen's Compensation Act, which cannot be accepted, because basically appellant had disowned his liability as an employer for the motor vehicle accident occurred, when facts and circumstances were established on record against him. Learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal gave sound reasons to arrive at conclusion against the appellant in the Court below that deceased Vitthal was proceeding on motorcycle on 12/11/2002 at about 2.00 p.m. at Jam village, Samudrapur Road as he was sent by appellant by giving his motorcycle bearing No.MH-31 F-2468 for casual work of the appellant. Therefore, appellant could not have escaped from his liability to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the driver, owner of the auto rickshaw (offending vehicle). The conclusions were arrived at on the basis of preponderance of probability, which was clearly in favour of the claimants, demanding compensation on account of death of deceased Vitthal Korde. Therefore, appellant could not have escaped from his liability to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the driver, owner of the auto rickshaw (offending vehicle). The conclusions were arrived at on the basis of preponderance of probability, which was clearly in favour of the claimants, demanding compensation on account of death of deceased Vitthal Korde. 6) The calculations of compensation based upon notional income of the deceased Vithhal at the rate of Rs.1,500/-per month and after deduction of 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses and computing monthly loss of dependency at Rs. 1,000/- per month, applying just and proper multiplier of 10 considering the age of the deceased Vitthal as well as the age of widow, etc. appears to be just and proper along with loss of consortium for a sum of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2500/- towards loss of estate, love and affection and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation, which was calculated in the sum of Rs.1,29,500/-, was in the facts and circumstances of the case, just and proper sum including the rate of interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization of the entire amount. 7) Therefore, considering the nature of claim and compensation awarded, no interference is warranted, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The impugned judgment and order was based on sound reasons, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.