Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 30th May, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MACT No. 25-S/2 of 2006/99, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.21,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4, herein and against the respondents, (for short, the “impugned award”). 2. The claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Precisely, the case of the claimants was that Shri Devinder Singh Rawat became victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by driver, namely, Manohar Singh, while driving vehicle, i.e. bus bearing registration No. HP-10-0326, on 9th June, 1999, at about 7.30 a.m., near Village Dhadi Rawat. Said Shri Devinder Singh Rawat was traveling in the said bus, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The accident is allegedly outcome of the rash and negligent driving of driver Manohar Lal. It is averred that the deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident, was working as Secret Security Officer in Special Protection Group, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi and his monthly salary was Rs.24,601/-. 4. The respondent, i.e. appellant contested the claim petition on the ground taken in its memo of objection. Respondent No. 2, i.e. driver Manohar Singh was set ex-parte before the Tribunal vide order dated 2.12.1999. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.07.2000 :- “1. Whether Sh. Davinder Singh Rawat died due to injuries sustained in vehicular accident on 9.6.1999 at Dhadi Rawat due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HP-10-0326 by its driver Sh. Manohar Singh, as alleged?…OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Relief.” 6. The claimants examined five witnesses in support of their case. One of the claimants, i.e. Smt. Amita Rawat also appeared in the witness box as PW-1. They also tendered some documents in evidence. The respondents did not led any evidence. 7. …OPP 3. Relief.” 6. The claimants examined five witnesses in support of their case. One of the claimants, i.e. Smt. Amita Rawat also appeared in the witness box as PW-1. They also tendered some documents in evidence. The respondents did not led any evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that driver Manohar Singh had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on the fateful day and caused the accident, in which Davinder Singh Rawat sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 8. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. 9. The claimants have proved prima-facie that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of driver Manohar Singh. Driver Manohar Singh has not questioned the impugned award. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 10. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 12 to 16 of the impugned award regarding issue No. 2. The monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.24,601/- as per Ext. PW-3/C. As per Ext. PW-1/A, the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident. 11. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘14’, which is just and appropriate, as per the schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the mandate of law laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. The Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- under the other heads. 12. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion and the assessment in the aforesaid paras of the impugned award. Accordingly, the finings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are also upheld. 13. Having said so, there is no merit in the appeal and merits to be dismissed. The impugned award merits to be upheld. However, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. 14. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 15. The impugned award merits to be upheld. However, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is also dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. 14. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 15. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.