JUDGMENT : In MACP No.48/2001 decided on 30/09/2005, the MACT, Achalpur directed the appellant to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Hence being aggrieved thereby, the instant appeal is preferred. 2. Facts of the appeal can be stated in brief as follows : Respondent No.1 is the widow of deceased Ramkrishna. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are their children. On 01/10/1996 while deceased was proceeding to Anjangaon from Pandhari on his bicycle, the jeep bearing registration No.MGS506 came from opposite direction in high speed and gave dash to the deceased. As a result, deceased along with his bicycle was dragged upto distance of 140 ft. He received various injuries in the said accident and was declared dead when he was brought to the hospital. In respect of the said incident, the offence was registered at Anjangaon police station against respondent No.7 who was driving jeep at the relevant time. Said jeep was belonging to the appellant and respondent No.6 was incharge of the said jeep. Hence respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation from the appellant, respondent No.6 and respondent No.7 jointly and severally. 3. As regards quantum of compensation, it was submitted that deceased was working as labourer and was earning Rs.5070 per day. He was contributing amount of Rs.40 per day to his family members after deducting his personal expenses. At the time of accident he was 45 years of age. Hence total amount of compensation claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 was Rs.3,30,000/. 4. This petition came to be resisted by the present appellant/respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Common defence raised by these respondents was that cause of accident was not the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver but it was the deceased who had, all of a sudden, came in front of the jeep, from behind one truck. The liability to pay the compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 5 was therefore denied by the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues at Exhibit 24. In support of her case, respondent No.1 examined herself alone and closed evidence. The liability to pay the compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 5 was therefore denied by the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues at Exhibit 24. In support of her case, respondent No.1 examined herself alone and closed evidence. She was cross examined on behalf of the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7 and respondents also relied upon the evidence of Arvind Chude, who was travelling in the jeep at the relevant time. 6. On the appreciation of this evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition, directing appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.2,25,000/to the claimants. 7. Being aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the appellant. In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has disputed the liability of jeep driver in the accident that has ensued and also the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal. 8. It is true that, as regards the cause of accident, the evidence of respondent No.1, the claimant, cannot be of much relevance, as she was not an eye witness to the accident. Hence this Court has to rely upon the documentary evidence like the FIR and spot panchanama. The copy of the FIR goes to show that police, on necessary inquiry, came to conclusion that the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver and accordingly offence under Section 279 and 304A of I.P.C was registered against the jeep driver. The spot panchanama reveals that on account of the impact of dash of jeep, deceased was dragged up to distance of 140 ft. Therefore it was clear that the impact was very forceful thereby indicating that jeep was driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. A specific plea is raised in the written statement by the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7 that deceased Ramkrishna came all of a sudden on the middle of the road from behind the truck and therefore the accident could not be avoided by the driver of the jeep. A specific plea is raised in the written statement by the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7 that deceased Ramkrishna came all of a sudden on the middle of the road from behind the truck and therefore the accident could not be avoided by the driver of the jeep. In order to prove the said plea, it was for the jeep driver to come before the Court with a case that the accident occurred, was not due to negligent driving of the jeep driver, but it was the deceased who came all of a sudden in front of a jeep from behind the truck. Respondent No.7 – the jeep driver has not examined himself. The appellant has, however, examined one eyewitness to the accident by name Arvind Chude, who was travelling in that jeep. He has, however, given a totally different version of the accident. According to him, as one truck from opposite side, the jeep driver has to take the jeep to the left side of the road, which resulted in dash to the cycle of the deceased. Moreover, in cross examination, he has admitted that he had not seen the accident due to darkness and he does not know whether jeep was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, his evidence is not of any help to the appellant to prove negligence of the deceased. 9. In such circumstances, the factual position as emerges from the FIR and spot panchanama has to be accepted to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. Hence, the appellant and respondent Nos.6 and 7 cannot evade the liability to compensate the claimants on account of death of deceased Ramkrishna. 10. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is deposed by respondent No.1 that at the time of accident, she was about 40 years of age whereas deceased was 45 years of age. Learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly applied multiplier of 15' in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vrs. D.C.P. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . According to the evidence of respondent No.1, deceased was doing labour work and was earning Rs.6070 per day. He was contributing amount of Rs.40 per day for his family. D.C.P. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . According to the evidence of respondent No.1, deceased was doing labour work and was earning Rs.6070 per day. He was contributing amount of Rs.40 per day for his family. Considering the said amount to be reasonable and applying multiplier of 15', Tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to get Rs.2,16,000/. The Tribunal further awarded amount of Rs.2000/for funeral expenses, Rs.2000/for loss of estate and Rs.5000/for loss of consortium. Hence respondent Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to get total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. 11. If one considers the evidence discussed and multiplier applied by the Tribunal, then the amount of compensation arrived at cannot be said to be unreasonable. Impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. Hence the appeal holds no merits and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.