JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The insurance company has challenged the judgment dated 21.2.2011 passed by the MACT (Aux), Navsari Camp at Vansda in MACP No. 252 of 2008. 2. The challenge is on the ground that the deceased himself was solely negligent and the accident had occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. 3. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the respondents no. 1 and 2-claimants no. 1 and 2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects appreciating the evidence on record and the negligence aspect has been dealt with in detail with the necessary sketch drawn to clarify the details of the accident as noted in the claim petition as well as in the FIR and accordingly, the Tribunal has laid down 100% negligence on the part of the truck driver. 4. The facts of the case as noted in the judgment suggest that on 25.10.2008, the deceased was proceeding from his home to Village Vaghai to Vansda in jeep bearing registration no. GJ-15-BB-1375 in moderate speed, jeep was on the left side of the road. When he reached the limits of Village Kilad, a truck bearing registration no. MH-15G-1952 driven by opponent no. 1 before the Tribunal is said to have come on wrong side and thereby, collided with the jeep car and the head on collision led to death of Shivrambhai Mahla. Copy of FIR Exh.31, Panchnama Exh.32, inquest Panchnama Exh.33, postmortem note Exh.34 were referred to find the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, which resulted into death of the husband of the claimant no. 1 and father of the claimant no. 2. The opponents no. 4 to 8 had made same prayer for the compensation and the joint purshis at Exh.60 was filed on record to resolve the dispute between the claimants no. 1 and 2 and opponents no. 4 to 8. Hence, the Tribunal considered the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and opponents no. 4 to 8 as the claimants to the matter. The policy of the truck was placed on record at Exh.64 which is insured with the present appellant. 5. The learned Tribunal referring to the FIR noted that the deceased proceeded from Surat and intended to reach Village Varakhali and prior to the accident, he was on the road from Vansda to Vaghai and the accident occurred while he reached near Village Kilad. 5. The learned Tribunal referring to the FIR noted that the deceased proceeded from Surat and intended to reach Village Varakhali and prior to the accident, he was on the road from Vansda to Vaghai and the accident occurred while he reached near Village Kilad. As per the claim petition, the deceased was going from Vaghai to Vansda. The learned Tribunal referring to the Panchnama had drawn the sketch in the judgment and the drawing was noted to assist the Tribunal in the finding that the truck driver had entered the wrong side. The slope was towards east and truck was going down the slope while the jeep car was climbing the slope and the Tribunal was of the view that it was the duty of the truck driver to give way to the jeep car. The Tribunal observed that the truck had gone on the wrong side and collided with the jeep car, but the truck driver failed to give space to the jeep car which was climbing the slope and thus, has resulted into accident, and the heavy impact of the truck caused damage and had resulted into the death, where the Tribunal has observed of head on collision and since the truck driver was found to have entered into wrong side, the learned Tribunal has considered 100% negligence of the truck driver. This Court having observed the facts as noted, appreciated the evidence with regard to negligence, concurs with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, since the jeep car was found climbing the slope, while the truck was coming down the slope and there was no space for the jeep driver to protect his vehicle as the truck driver had come on the wrong side, which had caused head on collision. The evidence on record in support of the Panchnama and the sketch to explain the position of the vehicle on the slope with the effect of the accident clarifies that it was the truck driver who was negligent while descending the slope. Hence, there is no case of any contributory negligence of the jeep driver. This Court does not find any reason to unsettle the conclusions of the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 44 years and applying the multiplier of 15 to the income of Rs. Hence, there is no case of any contributory negligence of the jeep driver. This Court does not find any reason to unsettle the conclusions of the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 44 years and applying the multiplier of 15 to the income of Rs. 5,000/- and deducing the personal expenses in view of the dependents, has granted total compensation amount of Rs. 6,15,000/- to the claimants. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the findings with regard to the income and the compensation granted. There is no merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal is rejected. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received. 7. It appears that the total awarded amount has been deposited in the FDR in compliance of the order dated 7.9.2011 passed in Civil Application for stay no. 7285 of 2011 in the present First Appeal. Now the minors may have turned major and thus, the amount be paid in proportion to the share decided by the Tribunal in the judgment on verification of the identity by account payee cheque/RTGS/NEFT.