JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. The instant appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') is filed by the State of Rajasthan and its officer against ex-parte judgment and award dated 29th of November 2007, passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.4 (MACT Cases), Jodhpur (for short 'learned Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.119/2005. 2. E. converso, respondent-claimants have filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC read with Section 173 of the Act of 1988 questioning findings on Issue No.3 in the impugned judgment and award with a prayer for adequate enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent-claimants filed a claim petition against State of Rajasthan and its Officer stating, inter-alia, therein that Dr. Madhusudan Bhatnagar, Joint Director, Medical and Health Department (husband of respondent-claimant No.1 and father of respondent-claimant No.2) in discharge of his official duty boarded Govt. Jeep No.RJ-14-2C- 2319 for proceeding from Jaipur to Jaisalmer. The claim petition further unfurled that when jeep crossed Ajmer enroute to Beawar, its driver drove it rashly and negligently and collided with truck bearing No.GJ-9V-1050. The claim petition also contained specific allegation that driver of the jeep lost its control on the vehicle and therefore due to accident he suffered grave and serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The respondent-claimants also pleaded in the claim petition that due to accident Dr. Madhusudan Bhatnagar also suffered fatal injuries and taken to hospital for treatment but he too took his last breath during treatment. Besides attributing negligence on the part of driver of the jeep, respondent-claimants also castigated driver of the truck for rash and negligent driving for causing accident. The respondent-claimants quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 26,41,000 under different heads including non-conventional damages. 4. In the claim petition, besides appellants, owner, driver and insurer of the truck were also impleaded as non-applicants. The learned Tribunal issued notices to the non-applicants by registered A.D. post but despite service of notices none appeared for the appellants and respondent No.3 & 4, and therefore, the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. Respondent No.5 insurer of the truck, contested the claim by filing reply. The learned Tribunal issued notices to the non-applicants by registered A.D. post but despite service of notices none appeared for the appellants and respondent No.3 & 4, and therefore, the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. Respondent No.5 insurer of the truck, contested the claim by filing reply. In its reply, respondent No.5 specifically pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by its driver and therefore it is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. A specific objection is also incorporated in the return that driver of the truck at the time of accident was not in possession of a valid and effective licence, and therefore, it is a clear case of breach of conditions of the insurance; sufficient to exonerate it from any sort of liability. 5. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of contesting parties, settled three issues for determination. For substantiating their claim, on behalf of respondent-claimants, respondent No.1 herself appeared in the witness box and examined one more witness AW2 Raghuveer Singh. Besides ocular evidence, respondent-claimants submitted 17 documents, which were exhibited. 6. The respondent insurer also produced one witness in its defence and exhibited 4 documents. A request was also made by the respondent insurance company to permit it for contesting the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom claim is made by laying application under Section 70 of the Act of 1988. The learned Tribunal, while acceding to the prayer of the insurance company allowed it to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom claim is made. 7. Upon conclusion of the evidence of rival parties, learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 regarding rash and negligent driving in favour of the respondent-claimants and against the appellants. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal found that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep by its driver. Taking into account the police investigation which has found driver of the jeep for the offence of rash and negligent driving but negative final report due to death of the driver and other evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal recorded its affirmative finding that no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the truck for accident. 8. Taking into account the police investigation which has found driver of the jeep for the offence of rash and negligent driving but negative final report due to death of the driver and other evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal recorded its affirmative finding that no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the truck for accident. 8. While examining Issue No.2, learned Tribunal recorded its finding against the respondent insurer in absence of any evidence tendered by it. 9. Adverting to Issue No.3, regarding quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal, after analyzing the entire ocular and documentary evidence, in the backdrop of age of the deceased, applied multiplier of 8 quantified total amount of compensation for loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 16,18,560. The aforementioned amount was worked out by the learned Tribunal after making ?rd deduction for personal expenses of the deceased. Besides that, learned Tribunal awarded transportation charges of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. For loss of consortium, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000 to the first respondent and for love & affection Rs. 5,000 to the second respondent. Finally, the total amount of compensation was quantified to the tune of 16,40,560. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent-claimants (cross-objectors) as well as learned counsel for Insurer, and perused the materials available on record. 11. Appellants by the instant appeal have impugned the judgment & award, which was passed ex-parte against them. In the memo of appeal, there is no whisper that learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them without proper service of notice, or despite service of notice they were prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when claim case was called on for hearing. Furthermore, at their behest, no endeavour was made for setting aside ex-parte judgment & award before the learned Tribunal. This sort of callousness and apathy by the State is undoubtedly a cause of grave & serious concern. Be that as it may, appellants cannot be non-suited on this count, and, therefore, I proceed to examine the afflictions of appellants on the strength of grounds set out in the memo of appeal. As the respondent-claimants are also disgruntled with the findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.3, their cross objections also require judicial scrutiny. 12. Be that as it may, appellants cannot be non-suited on this count, and, therefore, I proceed to examine the afflictions of appellants on the strength of grounds set out in the memo of appeal. As the respondent-claimants are also disgruntled with the findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.3, their cross objections also require judicial scrutiny. 12. The claim petition of the respondent-claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was essentially founded on common law, doctrine of vicarious liability, and, it has long been the established law that a master is liable to third persons for any injury or damage done through the negligence or unskillful ness of a servant acting in his master's employ. According to maxim "qui facit per alium facit per se", every act done by a servant in the course of his duty is regarded as done by his master's order, and, consequently it is the same as if it were master's own act. Undeniably, in the present case, driver of the government jeep, while on official duty of the State, driven it rashly and negligently, which has resulted in accidental death of Dr. Madhusudan Bhatnagar, and, therefore, for the tortuous act of its employee, appellant State is liable to pay compensation. 13. Supreme Court in its Constitution Bench Judgment, State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati and Anr. ( AIR 1962 SC 933 ), has duly recognized liability of the State for the tortuous act committed by its servant within the scope of his employment and functioning. The Court held: "Viewing the case from the point of view of first principles, there should be no difficulty in holding that the State should be as much liable for tort in respect of a tortious act committed by its servant within the scope of his employment and functioning as such as any other employer. The immunity of the Crown in the United Kingdom, was based on the old feudalistic notions of Justice, namely, that the King was incapable of doing a wrong, and, therefore, of authorising or instigating one, and that he could not be sued in his own courts. In India, ever since the time of the East India Company, the sovereign has been held liable to be sued in tort or in contract, and the Common Law immunity never operated in India. In India, ever since the time of the East India Company, the sovereign has been held liable to be sued in tort or in contract, and the Common Law immunity never operated in India. Now that we have, by our Constitution, established a Republican form of Government, and one of the objective is to established a Socialistic State with its varied industrial and other activities, employing a large army of servants, there is no justification, in principle, or in public interest, that the State should not be held liable victoriously for the tortious act of its servant. The Court has deliberately departed from the Common Law rule that a civil servant cannot maintain a suit against the Crown. In the case of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid [1954] S.C.R. 786, this Court has recognised the right of a government servant to sue the Government for recovery of arrears of salary. When the rule of immunity in favour of the Crown based on common Law in the United Kingdom has disappeared from the land of its birth, there is no legal warrant for holding that it has any validity in this country, particularly after the Constitution." 14. It is quite distressing that the learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition of the respondents, had no occasion to consider defence of the appellants due to their non-participation in the proceedings. However, this sort of situation, paved the way for adjudicating the claim by simply relying on the reply and evidence of the respondent Insurance Company. Requisite evidence adduced by the respondent-claimants to prove rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, eventually, persuaded the learned Tribunal to decide Issue No.1 against the appellants. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, including the papers submitted by the police in its final report, concluded that inapt handling and rash and negligent driving of the government jeep had resulted in the accident. In my view, in the backdrop of available material, findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 are based on sound reasoning's and proper appreciation of evidence, which cannot be faulted. 15. In my view, in the backdrop of available material, findings and conclusions of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 are based on sound reasoning's and proper appreciation of evidence, which cannot be faulted. 15. While it is true that the learned Tribunal has recorded its finding on Issue No.2 against the Insurance Company but then finding of Issue No.1 absolved it from any pecuniary liability inasmuch as driver of the insured vehicle was not found negligent for the cause of accident. 16. The crucial issue, i.e., Issue No.3, regarding quantum of compensation, both appellants and the respondent-claimants have locked horns, therefore, requires judicial scrutiny in the light of available ocular & documentary evidence as well as on the touchstone of just compensation, envisaged under Section 168 of the Act of 1988. The status of deceased Dr. Madhusudan Bhatnagar never remained contentious as at the time of his death he was Joint Director of Medical & Health Department, Rajasthan. For substantiating its claim, respondent-claimants have produced Last Pay Certificate and requisite proof about age of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, while relying on the Last Pay Certificate of deceased and his age of 57 years, applied the multiplier of 8 as per Second Scheduled to the Act of 1988 to work out total amount of compensation for loss of dependency after making ?rd deduction for personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the approach of learned Tribunal in determining compensation for loss of dependency, by no stretch of imagination can be categorized as alien to the province governing such assessment. There cannot be two opinions that Second Schedule to the Act of 1988 prescribes structured formula for determination of compensation vis-a-vis a claim based on the doctrine of "No Fault Liability", as envisaged under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, and in other cases, i.e., claims under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, it can be utilized as a guiding factor. Therefore, the amount determined and quantified to the tune of Rs. 16,18,560 for loss of dependency is per se reasonable and cannot be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. That apart, the compensation awarded for transportation charges, funeral expenses and loss of consortium too is a just amount, warranting no interference. 17. The cross-objections of respondent-claimants regarding findings on Issue No.3, are also considered by the Court. 16,18,560 for loss of dependency is per se reasonable and cannot be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. That apart, the compensation awarded for transportation charges, funeral expenses and loss of consortium too is a just amount, warranting no interference. 17. The cross-objections of respondent-claimants regarding findings on Issue No.3, are also considered by the Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, suffice it to observe in this behalf that respondent No.1, widow of deceased, herself was in Government employment and respondent No.2 is a married daughter of the deceased. True it is that respondent No.2 is a married daughter but it is rather difficult to comprehend that she is having no claim over the assets of the deceased being a legal heir. It is also noteworthy that human life is very precious and no amount of compensation can be treated as adequate reimbursement for the same but then passage of more than 14 years from the date of accident and some other relevant factors, I am not impressed by the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent-claimants for re-determination/enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. In totality, I feel dissuaded to interfere with the impugned award at the behest of both the parties. 18. The upshot of above discussion is that both instant appeal as well as cross-objections merit rejection and therefore both are hereby dismissed.