JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 20.12.2006 passed by Judge, MACT Bhinmal in MACT Claim No.40/2005 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the Appellant Company. The cost be also awarded to the Appellant Company." 2. The unfortunate accident had happened on 20.05.2000 at about 7:00 to 8:00 PM, when a Jeep bearing registration No. GJ08 V 4670, in which family members of the claimants were travelling towards Dhanera, overturned after striking a stone on the road, resulting into death of Pratap Ram. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Jagdish Vyas appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that deceased Pratap Ram was travelling as a passenger in the goods vehicle, and therefore, was not entitled for any kind of indemnification from the Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Anil Bhandari appearing on behalf of the claimants though submits that there is a cross objection to this appeal, but is unable to provide the number of the same. However, learned counsel for the claimants makes a submission regarding the appeal as well as his case in cross objection as he has his file of cross objection with him. He further submits that the multiplier applied by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law as it has applied multiplier of 5 whereas multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Manish Patel appearing on behalf of vehicle owner refuses any liability. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal and the arguments made for the counter objection by learned counsel for the claimants, which is of course not on record, clearly indicates that the deceased person was carrying goods (vegetables) in the goods vehicle and was travelling in the capacity of owner of such goods, being the vegetable owner. 7. 7. This Court finds that the multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is justified, in the given circumstances, and thus, no case for interference on either side is made out. 8. In view of the above, the present misc. appeal is dismissed while directing learned counsel for the claimants that whenever his cross objection is listed, this order shall be brought to the knowledge of this Court for deciding the same. All the pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.