JUDGMENT DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. - This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 16.11.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No.362 of 1999 awarding an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with accrued interest by modifying the award dated 20.08.1998 of an amount of Rs.7,91,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application, i.e., 14.08.1996 till realization passed by the Ist Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No.708 of 1996 . 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the claimants-respondents no.1 to 5 are legal heirs of one Surya Narayan Acharya, who was serving as Cash-cum-Accounts Clerk in Bhubaneswar Branch of the Bank of India. On 25.04.1996 at 9 PM while he was returning to his house in his Scooter on the extreme left side of the road met with an accident near Ram Mandir Square (Sahidnagar), Bhubaneswar when a mini truck bearing Regd. No.OIC-9817 came from Vani Vihar side in high speed and dashed against him. As a result of which he was thrown away of the Scooter and sustained internal head injuries. Despite treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 30.04.1996 at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed an application before 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack registered as Misc. Case No. 708 of 1996 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-(ten lakhs). 3. After considering both oral and documentary evidence on record including the monthly income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal by order dated 20.08.1998 awarded Rs.7,91,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application in Misc. Case No.708 of 1996 as compensation. The said order was challenged before this Court by filing Misc. Appeal No.362 of 1999 with a completely separate plea that while the deceased was driving the Scooter on the road he was hit by a Street Bull and sustained injury and ultimately succumbed injuries and as such denied any accident with any mini truck in question and therefore, stated that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation for such death of the deceased. Apart from the same, so far determination of quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended that learned Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 36 years has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15 for such determination. 4. Learned Single Judge while considering the facts available on record has come to a definite finding and has categorically stated that the plea which was advanced before the learned Single Judge was not raised before the Tribunal. In absence of any pleading before the Tribunal, learned Single Judge discarded the new plea taken before him. So far as applicability of multiplier factor of 15 is concerned, has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Nagappa Mahadev Doddaamani v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999(3) T.A.C. 197 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that in appeal interference can only be made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. But, the present case is a case of determination of compensation by erroneously adopting the multiplier which is not applicable to the deceased. Therefore, learned Single Judge has held that as the contention of wrong application of multiplier not covered under the decision of the apex Court, therefore is not inclined to interfere with the same and confirmed the applicability of multiplier by the Tribunal. But, subsequently, learned Single Judge has assumed the application of wrong multiplier by which the learned Tribunal has committed error and applying multiplier of 13 determined the amount which comes to Rs.6,68,049.70 and if Rs.10,000/- towards treatment and funeral and another Rs.10,000/- towards consortium, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, are added the total comes to Rs.6,88,049.70. As such, in the award nothing has been awarded towards loss of affection and estate. Therefore, learned Single Judge directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to be paid towards the same. Thereby the total compensation comes to Rs.7,00,049.70 or say Rs.7,00,000/- (seven lakhs) which shall be paid to the claimants along with the accrued interest within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order dated 16.11.2001 in Misc. Appeal No.362 of 1999. The said order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this intra- Court appeal. 5. Appeal No.362 of 1999. The said order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this intra- Court appeal. 5. After examining the materials available on record and on perusing the order dated 16.11.2001 passed in Misc. Appeal No.362 of 1999, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellant and considered the same in accordance with law and determined the quantum of compensation. Thereby the award passed by the learned Tribunal for a sum of Rs.7,91,000/- has been modified to Rs.7,00,000/- (seven lakhs). Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 16.11.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No.362 of 1999 which warrants interference at this stage. Thereby the award so passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No.362 of 1999 is confirmed and the appellant is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Seven lakhs) along with accrued interest to the claimants as expeditiously as possible within a period of one month from today, if the same has not already been paid in the meantime time. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.