JUDGMENT : G.M. Lodha, J.—This is a claimants' appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment dated May 29, 1980 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk in Motor Accident Claim No 101 of 1977. 2. Claimant Abdul Hakim is the father of deceased Pyarey Miyan, who died on account of the accident while sitting in his own truck No. RJH 685 on the night intervening 16th and 17th May, 1977. This truck loaded with sand and logs was going from Tonk to Kota. Mohammed Yusuf was driving this truck. When this truck passed Naya Gaon on Tonk-Deoli road, suddenly another truck No. RSG 179 driven by Respondent No. 3 crossed the truck. The claimant's case is that this truck RSG 179 was being driven rashly and negligently and it struck the former truck by the side by rubbing its body. The impact of this accident resulted in head injury to Pyarey Miyan, who was sitting above. He was taken to the hospital at Tonk, but he succumbed to injuries and was declared dead. 3. In this case the very existence of truck No. RSG 179 on the site of the accident is denied and it is pleaded that this number has been falsely mentioned after the accident and the F.I.R. has been ante-dated. 4. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has found that the defence was correct and truck No. RSG 179 was not identified on the spot but by ante-dating the F.I.R. this number was introduced later on. 5. In this appeal Mr. Bandhu has submitted that the approach of the Tribunal has been perfunctory and based on misleading evidence. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has supported the finding of the Tribunal and submitted that the appreciation of the evidence is well balanced and correct and calls for no interference. 6. The entire record of the case was read over by Mr. Bandhu. The relevant evidence consists of PW 2 Mohammed Yusuf and PW 5 Mohammed Farukh, driver and cleaner respectively of truck No. RJH 685. 6. The entire record of the case was read over by Mr. Bandhu. The relevant evidence consists of PW 2 Mohammed Yusuf and PW 5 Mohammed Farukh, driver and cleaner respectively of truck No. RJH 685. A perusal of the judgment shows that the Tribunal has laid much emphasis on the statement of Mohammed Yusuf and has believed it primarily on the ground that he was not knowing the number of the truck which came from the opposite side and this No. RSG 179 was introduced in the F.I.R. later on by Mohammed Yusuf on account of some information or some enquiries on some hints, which he got at the chungi chowki about the passing of the vehicle. In para 13 the Tribunal has observed as under: 7. If the statement of this witness is read as a whole, it would transpire that this inference of the Tribunal is not justified. In cross-examination he has stated that the colour of truck (RSG 179) was green with white spots. It was mentioned on it that it belongs to N.H. Goods Transport Company. He was knowing the driver and this vehicle from before. In this statement he has mentioned that at the octroi post he came and checked up further that vehicle went to Jaipur side. However, no inference can be drawn from this that he was not knowing the number of the vehicle (RSG 179) and that it was at die octroi post that he came to know the number for the first time. The only inference which can be drawn from the statement of this witness read as a whole is that though he was knowing that the truck number was RSG 179, he further checked the same at the octroi post also. Similarly is the case of name of driver. 8. The statement of PW 5 Mohammed Farukh corroborates the above evidence. Much capital has been made by the Tribunal on the description and details of the manner in which the number of the truck was observed by this witness as given in the statement. According to this witness when the vehicle had crossed, he had observed the number. He further stated that the number was seen from the rear side of the vehicle only when he got down from the truck immediately after the collision. At that time the vehicle had hardly gone 10 to 20 feet. According to this witness when the vehicle had crossed, he had observed the number. He further stated that the number was seen from the rear side of the vehicle only when he got down from the truck immediately after the collision. At that time the vehicle had hardly gone 10 to 20 feet. In my opinion, the Tribunal has unnecessarily emphasised the minor variance, if any, between the evidence in the manner of observation and the reason of giving the number. In rebuttal of the above witness Dula Ram has been examined and he had given negative evidence. 9. I am of the view that in face of positive evidence of the two eye-witnesses, who were the most natural witnesses being the driver and khalasi of the vehicle concerned in which the deceased was sitting, the negative evidence is not sufficient to rebut that. 10. The next point relates to the injuries caused to Pyarey Miyan. The Tribunal has stated that it has not been proved that the injuries were caused on account of the impact of the accident. It has come in evidence of die claimants' side that soon after the accident die truck was stopped as some one cried from the above that Pyarey Miyan has been injured. PW 5 Mohammed Farukh himself went inside the truck to find out and then observing the injuries, Pyarey Miyan was taken to the hospital. 11. The Tribunal has observed that according to Dr. Beni Prasad injury could have been caused to Pyarey Miyan if he would have been sitting in a particular posture with some support and if the head strikes the truck. I am unable to appreciate this line of reasoning of the Tribunal that since as per the doctor the injury can be caused in different manner also, the possibility of injury having been caused in any other manner cannot be ruled out. It should be kept in view that the Tribunal was conducting an accident claims case and not a criminal trial. Immediately on the impact of the accident there was a cry from me above that Pyarey Miyan had been injured and witness Mohammed Farukh observed the injuries by going inside the truck, so there is no other possibility except that the injury was caused on account of the impact of the accident. 12. Immediately on the impact of the accident there was a cry from me above that Pyarey Miyan had been injured and witness Mohammed Farukh observed the injuries by going inside the truck, so there is no other possibility except that the injury was caused on account of the impact of the accident. 12. I have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect of the case also. 13. Regarding compensation, the deceased was 24 years and as per the finding of the Tribunal he was earning Rs. 300/- per month. In my opinion, the expectancy of the income by father from Rs. 300/- could not be more than Rs. 150/- per month. On the expectation that the father would live for another 20 years, as he was of 50 years at the time of death of his son, the expected income which the father would have got as financial benefit from his son would be Rs. 36,000/- . Consequently the claim petition is accepted and it is ordered that the Respondents including the insurance company would be jointly and severally liable for payment of Rs. 36,000/- to Appellant No. 1 Abdul Hakim, father of the deceased. The amount should be paid within three months, failing which the Respondents would pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till the date of payment. The Appellant will get costs of Rs. 400/- of this appeal from the Respondents.