JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar granted on 11-9-1984. 2. On 20-2-1980 deceased Narayan Ram along with his maternal uncle Bishna Ram and one Manshram was going from Chak 47 F to Mukan. At about 12 all the three reached near Roopnagar. A jeep DHA 6851 said to be belonging to appellant Budda Ram and driven by him knocked Bishna Ram resulting in his fall. Bishna Ram sustained chest injury The jeep then knocked Narayan Ram. Narayan Ram met instantaneous death on account of the accident. Budda Ram, the jeep Driver, ran away from there along with the jeep towards Mukan. Bishna Ram went to the Police Station Karanpur and lodged the report. Murlidhar, SHO of Police Station, Karanpur, went to the site and conducted necessary investigation. On the same day he went to the house of Budda Ram and recovered jeep DHA 6251 from his house. 3. Bishna Ram filed a claim for Rs. 8,500/- and the mother, wife and children of Narayan Ram for an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Judge of the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence produced by the claimants and the appellant Budda Ram gave a finding that Bishna Ram had sustained injuries and Narayan Ram met his death on account of the rashness and negligence of appellant Budda Ram. 4. In view of that finding, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, award of Rs. 4,060/- was passed in favour of Bishna Ram and Rs. 51,800/-in favour of the heirs of deceased Narayan Ram. The learned Counsel for appellant has assailed the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal firstly on the ground that without there being any convincing evidence regarding the Jeep in question being the vehicle of accident, the learned Judge has taken it for granted that this was the vehicle which had caused accident. The second limb of the arguments is regarding the amount of compensation allowed to the heirs of Narayan Ram being excessive. 5. The learded Judge of the Tribunal has carefully examined the statement of Bishna Ram and Mansha Ram and in my opinion has rightly placed raliance on their statements. The second limb of the arguments is regarding the amount of compensation allowed to the heirs of Narayan Ram being excessive. 5. The learded Judge of the Tribunal has carefully examined the statement of Bishna Ram and Mansha Ram and in my opinion has rightly placed raliance on their statements. The head light of the Jeep recovered from the house of Budda Ram was broken and, as the statement of Murlidhar is, the jeep had been freshly washed, there is the evidence of Bishna ram and Mansharam that Budda ram was driving a jeep which had caused accident. The colour of the Jeep has also been stated by them. This being the evidence, the learned Judge has committed no error in holding that it was the jeep DHA 6251 driven by Budda Ram which had caused the accident. Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for appellant has vehemently stressed that from the site-plan and site memo the width of the road appears to be only 8 ft. and if the vehicle had gone 2 ft. towards the Kachcha foot path, it cannot be said to be rash and negligent driving so as to entitle the victim of the accident or the heirs of another victim to any compensation. 6. This is not disputed that the dead body of Narayan Ram except his head was on the kachcha foot path. There is no evidence to show that there was any vehicle coming from the front side or there was any other reason for the driver to take the vehicle on the kachcha foot path. The fact of the brake marks of the vehicle going upto 13 ft. and there being no mark at the place of the accident do suggest that the driver had not tried to apply brakes at that place corroborates the testimony of Bishna Ram and Mansha Ram that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. When the evidence on record shows that Narayan Ram was on the kachcha foot path and the jeep had gone to the kachcha foot path, there arises no question of any contibutory negligence on the part of Narayan Ram as asserted by the learned Counsel for the appellant. When the evidence on record shows that Narayan Ram was on the kachcha foot path and the jeep had gone to the kachcha foot path, there arises no question of any contibutory negligence on the part of Narayan Ram as asserted by the learned Counsel for the appellant. I am, therefore, in perfect agreement with the learned Judge of the Tribunal that Bishna Ram had sustained injury and Narayan Ram met his death on account of the rashness and negligent driving of the appellant. 7. So far as the amount of compensation awarded to Bishna Ram is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant did not advance any argument. For the amount awarded to the heirs of Narayan Ram, the contention of Mr. Gupta is that the multiplying yearly income of the deceased by 16 years cannot be said to be correct. The argument does not appeal. The age of Narayan Ram at the time of accident was 50 years. He was an agriculturist and an agriculturist in ordinary course is fit for agricultural work upto the age of 65 years. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the income which the heirs of Narayan Ram would get from the land and, therefore, had taken Rs. 36.800/- as an adequate amount of compensation for the four heirs of Narayan Ram who are mother, wife, one minor son and one minor daughter of Narayan Ram. Mr. Gupta next argued that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded for love and affection to the heirs of Narayan Ram is excessive. The amount in view of the age of the deceased and the surviving heirs being mother, wife and two minor children cannot be said to be excessive. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no interference is called for in the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded as solatium for love and affection to the heirs of Narayan Ram. 8. Consequently, the appeal has no substance and is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******