JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. Following order was passed on 16th September, 2019 :- "None appeared for the respective party. Put up this matter for final hearing/dismissal after one week." 2. Heard learned Adv. Shri Ambatkar holding for Adv. Shri P. R. Agrawal for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. The present appeal is by the Insurance Company against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, dated 2nd May,2008 in Claim Petition No. 237 of 2006. The material facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under:- 4. On 11th July,2006 at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased Dnyaneshwar was going by a car bearing Registration No. MH-30/L7290 from Amravati to Akola. He was driving the said vehicle in a moderate speed on the correct side of the road. At that time, a Luxury Bus bearing Registration No. MH-34/M-2102 driven by the respondent no.3 [parties are referred as per nomenclatures in the Claim Petition]. The said was owned by the respondent no.1 and was insured by respondent no.2, the appellant herein. The said bus came from the opposite direction in a high speed and gave a dash to the vehicle of deceased. The deceased sustained serious bodily injuries. He was admitted in General Hospital, Murtizapur. Thereafter, he was shifted to Akola, but during the treatment, he died. The petitioners/claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.14,85,000/-. The respondent nos. 1 and 3, i.e., the owner and driver respectively of the offending bus were proceeded ex parte. The respondent no.2, i.e., the appellant, fled its Written Statement at Exh.13 and denied the claim. Issues were framed at Exh.19. The claimant/Petitioner No.2 - Avinash examined himself. The respondent no.2 did not examine any witness. The learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.3 - driver of the offending bus. 5. The deceased was working in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Akola and earning Rs.23,578/-. The Salary Certificate [Exh.47] was produced on record. On the basis of income, the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.9,70,000-00 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence on record, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. On the basis of income, the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.9,70,000-00 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence on record, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. There is no dispute that the appellant insured the said offending bus at the time of accident. Therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was working in MSEDCL and earning Rs. 23,578/-. The Salary Certificate [Exh.47] was produced on record. He was aged about 56 years and, therefore, multiplier of eight was applied by the Tribunal. Perusal of the impugned judgment does not show any infirmity or illegality. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. 7. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 - claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited by the appellant in this Court, along with accrued interest, if any.