JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals arise out of the award given by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur by the order dated 18 9.82 therefore, they are disposed of together by common order. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to these appeals are that on 14.1.78 at about 6.30 deceased Madan Lal Maver met with an accident with the truck No. RJW 1676 belonging to Rajasthan State Electricity Board non-claimant. No. 2 and it was driven by Shri Bhoor Singh driver of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. It is alleged that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner which hit Madanlal who was on Motor Cycle. As a result of which Madanlal died on the spot, and the motor cycle was damaged. The dependant of the deceased Madanlal filed the present claim before the Tribunal. It is alleged that the deceased was field officer in the Life Insurance Corporation and serving as Jalore. He was drawing Rs 964.85 and out of which he was spending about Rs. 800/- per month on family. He was aged about 34 years and he would have lived at the age of 80 years. His father is alive and he is about 60 years. In his service career he would have reached the stage of Branch Manager and would have earned Rs. 2,000/- per month. Thus, the total Rs. 5,00,760/- was claimed as a compensation under the various heads. The claim was denied by the driver Bhoor Singh Rajasthan Electricity Board and the Oriental Fire & General Insurance with which the vehicle in question was said to be insured. 3. The reply was filed by the non-claimants No. 1 and 3. It was submitted that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving. The non-claimant No 2 denied the happening of the accident. The non-claimant No. 2 supported the contention of the non claimants No. 1 and 2 and further submitted that his liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- . On the basis of these pleadings seven issues were framed. The learned member, Tribunal after reviewing all the evidence which was placed before him came to the conclusion that this was the same vehicle with which the accident took place and he found that non-claimant No. 1 Bhoor Singh was a driver and he was rash and negligent. 50,000/- . On the basis of these pleadings seven issues were framed. The learned member, Tribunal after reviewing all the evidence which was placed before him came to the conclusion that this was the same vehicle with which the accident took place and he found that non-claimant No. 1 Bhoor Singh was a driver and he was rash and negligent. Thereafter the learned Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- as a compensation to the claimants on the ground that claimant would have spend Rs. 7600/- to his dependent and applied a multiplier of 20 year thus, Rs. 1,52,000/- . He has also awarded . 9% interest from the date the claim petition was filed i.e. from 10.9.1917. The amount was liable to be recovered from the non-claimants individually and jointly. The liability of Insurance Company was fixed to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- He has also distributed the amount among claimants in ratio 1/2, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6 and he has also directed that the amount shall be deposited in a schedule bank. 4. Aggrieved against this award the appellant Bhoor Singh driver of the vehicle and RSEB have come in appeal. Mr. Nagauri learned counsel for Shri Bhoor Singh and Shri Palav Sisodia for RSEB have taken me to the evidence of all the witnesses and have also invited my attention to various documents. Both the learned counsels strenuously urged that the member, Tribunal has committed a serious illegality in relying on the testimony of Mohanlal P.W, 1, who is wholly unreliable person. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Judge, Tribunal has also committed a serious error in pressing into service various circumstances in order to fasten a liability on the appellants. The learned counsel submitted that this was a case in which the identity of vehicle could not be ascertained, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for the compensation. 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and I have also perused the statements of witnesses on record. The story of the claimants was that Mohan Lal P.W. 1 and Ghomaram O.P.W. 2 were sitting on the front seat with the driver Bhoor Singh O.P.W. 1. The presence of Mohanlal in the vehicle at the relevant time had been accepted by both the O.P.W. 1 Bhoor Singh and OPW 2 Ghomeram. The story of the claimants was that Mohan Lal P.W. 1 and Ghomaram O.P.W. 2 were sitting on the front seat with the driver Bhoor Singh O.P.W. 1. The presence of Mohanlal in the vehicle at the relevant time had been accepted by both the O.P.W. 1 Bhoor Singh and OPW 2 Ghomeram. Mohanlal P.W. ls statement were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. which are on record as ex.1- The statement of this witness in the criminal trial was recorded which has also been placed on record and marked as Ex. 2. P.W. 1 Mohanlal has not been consistent in his version but one fact after reading the various statements of Mohanlal emerges that he was travelling in the same vehicle in which the accident took place. The presence of this witness has not been disputed by any body. Secondly he is in the service of Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has said that he is not aware of the accident but in the end he has deposed that he was cautioned by Bhoor Singh (driver) not to make a mention of any such accident as there a prestige of department is involved. In his statement before Criminal Trial he has tried to get away with it but he has stuck to the position that he was told by Bhoor Singh not to make a mention about the so-called accident. 6. Both the learned counsels for the appellant strenuously urged that Mohanlal is unreliable witness and his testimony should be rejected at the out right. Has it been a case arising from criminal prosecution perhaps the arguments of learned counsel would have gone home. But in claim cases a viable approach should be taken and standard for appreciation of testimony of witness cannot be same as in criminal cases. In such cases preponderance of probability is to be such. 7. Apart from this, testimony of this witness stands corroborated from the other facts that this vehicle was seized soon thereafter and it was inspected by the police and in that inspection note by the mechanical inspector it is found that it has some bend on the front portion of the truck. Then the identity of truck has further been established with the aid of photographs of the tyre mark on the road. Then the identity of truck has further been established with the aid of photographs of the tyre mark on the road. The tyre of the truck was seized by the police as it was found stained with blood. The sample of blood was sent to the chemical examiner for determining the blood group. The chemical examiner confirmed that it bore the blood marks but he failed to confirm whether it is a human blood or not. The truck tyre was brought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after examining the tyre and mark of the tyre from photographs came to the conclusion that they tally with each other. These are some of the circumstances which support the version of Mohanlal that this was the very truck which was involved in the accident. Thus, in this view of the matter think the learned, Member, Tribunal has rightly relied on the testimony of the Mohanlal. The next question which is regarding quantum of compensation. Since the deceased was a field officer in Life Insurance Corporation and his total family dependance has been found to be Rs. 7600/- per year as he was drawing Rs. 964.85 paisa per month at the time of the accident. Thus, this amount of family dependency cannot be said to be excessive. The Tribunal has employed a multiplier of 2d years which in the present case is reasonable. Therefore, findings of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in both these appeals and they are dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed *******