JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - An accident occurred at about 6 a.m. on 14-5-1976 when an Ambassador Car No. UPA 9829 was proceeding from Narora to Aligarh and was hit by Bus No. UPB 7979 coming from the opposite direction near Chhatari crossing on Anupshahar road, mid-way between Narora and Aligarh. As a result of this accident Abbas alias Bengali, driver of the Car and one of the passengers Smt. Beena were killed on the spot. The accident gave rise to two claim petitions. Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 18 of 1976 was lodged by the widow and heirs of Abbas claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- while Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 19 of 1976 was lodged by one Panna Lal, owner of the Car, his brother, children and the heirs of Smt. Beena deceased. They put forward a claim for Rs. 21,000/- consisting of a claim of Rs. 8000/- for damages to the Car, Rs. 3000/- for injuries pains and sufferings caused to Gopal Krishna and Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and love and affection to the children of Gopal Krishna and himself. 2. The claim petitions were contested by the owner and driver of the Bus as also by the insurer. A number of grounds were taken but the main grounds were that the accident was not caused on account of any rashness or negligence on the part of the Bus driver and secondly that the amount claimed was excessive. It is not necessary to refer to several other grounds that were taken by the opp. party as they have been very competently dealt with by the Accident Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Bus owner as also Sri Shashi Nandan, appearing for the Insurance Co, have attached the findings merely on the above two main points. 3. Having heard the learned counsel and on going through the evidence on record and the award of the Tribunal I do not find that any grounds exists for interference with the findings of the Tribunal on any of the two findings. 3. Having heard the learned counsel and on going through the evidence on record and the award of the Tribunal I do not find that any grounds exists for interference with the findings of the Tribunal on any of the two findings. In a detailed award the Tribunal has considered all the relevant evidence and has come to the conclusion that at the relevant time the Car was on the extreme left side of the road when it was hit by the Bus which had come to its wrong side before hitting the Car resulting in the two deaths and injury to the occupants and damage to the Car. The Bus owner sought support from the oral testimony of Ramesh Chandra, Bharat Bhushan and Basant Kumar whose statements were discussed by the Tribunal in great detail and has come to the conclusion that it was not safe to rely upon their testimony. Gopal Krishna one of the claimants in MAG No. 19 of 1976 was admittedly an occupant of the Car involved in the accident and had seen the manner in which, the accident had taken place. The driver of the Car having died in the accident it was not possible for the claimant to produce him as a witness. The other eye witness would have been the driver of the Bus who, according to the claimant, was Manveer Singh, the owner himself but he denied being at the wheal of the Bus at the relevant time. Manbeer Singh, therefore, could not state any thing about the actual manner in which the accident had occurred although on the findings recorded by the Tribunal it was he who was driving the Bus. 4. It is not denied that Gopal Krishna and his family had gone to Narora to have holy dip in the ganges on the occasion of Chandra Grahan (iuner eclipse) and after taking bath early in the morning they were returning from Narora, Aligarh. It is also not denied that on account of Chandra Grahan a lot of persons were going Narora to have a holy bath in the Ganges and there was some traffic on the road. However, the Tribunal has found that the width of the road on the site of accident was nearly 15 feet which was sufficient for the Bus and the Car to pass along side. However, the Tribunal has found that the width of the road on the site of accident was nearly 15 feet which was sufficient for the Bus and the Car to pass along side. The very fact that the Car had only one wheal on the road and the rest of it was on the kuchcha patri and the Bus was to the right side of the middle of the road clearly goes to show that it was being rashly and negligently driven. Photographs on record show the extensive damage caused to the Car which is also indicative of the force of the impact which is directly proportionate to the speed of the vehicle. For the reasons that have been set out by the Tribunal after dealing in extense with the material on record concur with its findings and hold that the Bus driver was rash and negligent in causing the accident. 5. Heirs of the driver have been awarded full amount of compensation claimed by them. He was hardly 40 years of age and left behind him his widow and seven minor children between the ages of two to thirteen years. He was earning Rs. 1,300/- and was spending Rs. 700/- over his family. Taking into account all these circumstances the claim of Rs. 50,000/- must be said to be rather on the modest side but since it was all that was claimed the same has been awarded in full and think rightly so. Out of this amount of Rs. 50,000/- , Rs. 45,500/- have been saddled with the Insurance Co. and Rs. 5,500/- on the Bus owner which, in my opinion, was quite in accordance with law F.A.F.O. 6. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 19 of 1976 was filed by Panna Lai, owner of the Car, his brother and his two children. Gopal Krishna and his two children were travelling in the Car along with Smt. Beena, wife of Gopal Krishna. Smt. Beena admittedly died in the accident on the spot. She was 24 years old and was graduate, the entire family was being looked after by her although the bread earner of (he family was Gopal Krishana. It has conic in evidence that Gopal Krishna married a second time, a few months after the accident. 7. The main line of attack on behalf of the appellant is regarding award of damages of Rs. It has conic in evidence that Gopal Krishna married a second time, a few months after the accident. 7. The main line of attack on behalf of the appellant is regarding award of damages of Rs. 8,000/- in respect of the Car. The claimant have filed an estimate which is Ext.-8 on the record and Pana Lal has proved that he spent Rs. 8000/- over purchases of various parts of the damaged Car and on is repair & labour charges etc. It is true that ail the vouchers in respect of the purchase of the parts have not been produced on the record but since the Evidence Act as such is not applicable to the Motor Accident Claim Cases the Tribunal was justified in believing the testimony of Panna Lal in this respect. Since there is no evidence to the contrary and the photographs of the damaged Car clearly go to show the excessive nature of the damage I am inclined to agree with the Tribunal that atleast Rs. 8000/- must have been spent on the repair of the Car. 8. For pain and injuries to Gopal Krishna-against a claim of Rs. 3,000/- , Rs. 2,000/- have been awarded. It stands proved that he had to be hospitalised for some time after the accident. He suffered dislocation of hip bone and fracture on right little finger. Keeping that in view the award of Rs. 2.000/- by way of damages cannot be said to be excessive. 9. For loss due to the death of Smt. Beena Rs. 10,000/- has been claimed by way of damages for loss of consortium and love and affection to children. Against, this claim Rs 2000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal keeping in view the fact that Gopal Krishna had married again within six months of Smt. Beenas death. Since his marital life has been rehabilitated and the children must now be properly looked after and given necessary love and affection, I do not find any good reason to discard that claims which the Tribunal has awarded on this court. 10. Out of a sum of Rs. 8000/- awarded to the claimants as damages to the Car Rs. 2000/- is the liability of the Insurance Co. while Rs. 6000/- has been fixed as liability of the owner. Similarly cut of the remaining Rs. 4000/- the liability of the Insurance Co. has been fixed at Rs. 10. Out of a sum of Rs. 8000/- awarded to the claimants as damages to the Car Rs. 2000/- is the liability of the Insurance Co. while Rs. 6000/- has been fixed as liability of the owner. Similarly cut of the remaining Rs. 4000/- the liability of the Insurance Co. has been fixed at Rs. 3,500/- and that of the owner at Rs. 500/- . Thus in all the Insurance Co. has been made liable for paying Rs. 50,000/- while the owner has been made liable to pay Rs. 12,000/- only. Apportionment of liability appears to be just and fair and requires no interference by the Court. 11. In the result F.A.F.O. No. 160 of 1979, directed against a decision in MAC petition No 18 of 1976 is dismissed. The same is the facts of F.A.F.O. No. 5 of 1979, filed by the Insurance Co. in that claim petition, Both these F.A.F.O. are dismissed with three-fourth costs to the claimants. F.A.F.O. No. 161 of 1979 filed by the owner of the Bus and F.A F.O. No. 4 of 1979 filed by the Insurance Co. are both dismissed with three-forth cost to the claimants in this Court. 12. All the four F.A.F.O.s are disposed of accordingly.