JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 7.2.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as MACT) Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 146/88, awarding Rs. 1,25,000/- along with 12% interest as claimed by heirs and legal representatives of deceased Balu Ram. 2. It is averred in the claim petition by heirs and legal representatives of deceased that while the deceased was on his way on scooter on 29.1.1986 at about 3.45 p.m. he met with fatal accident at Secondary School Kapasan with Jeep No. RND 5360 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Hari Singh s/o Kalu Singh. The aforesaid Jeep was allotted by Deputy Developmental Commissioner, (Rural Development and Panchyati Raj) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur to Panchyat Samiti, Kapasan for official, Governmental job. Kalu Singh was its driver in-charge of vehicle whereas at the time of accident it was being driven by his son Hari Singh. It is also averred that one Manjoor Alam was sitting on the pillion, at the time of accident, who also received injuries. 3. MACT, Chittorgarh framed as many as four issues and focused the attention of the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. 4. Claimants in support of their claim examined Koshalya Devi herself as PW 1, Gopal Lal Dadhich, Manager of Somani Mosaic Tiles as PW 2, Manjoor Alam as PW 3, Moola as PW 4 and Dr. Purshottam Rathi, to prove postmartem report of deceased as PW 5. The claimants also filed documentary evidence. the post-mortem report was filed as Ex. 1, Panchyatanama as Ex. 2, Charge-sheet against Hari Singh and Kalu Singh by police as Ex. 3, site plan as Ex. 4, withdrawal of salaries by deceased from Somani Mosaic Tiles from July 1985 to December 1985 as Exs. 5 to 8 and extract of Muster roll as Exs. 9 to 11. 5. Irrespective of sufficient time granted by Tribunal to the appellants to adduce evidence in rebuttal, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned. 7. At the very outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has not properly evaluated the testimonial value of PW 3 Manjoor Alam and Moola PW 4, to prove the factum of accident. 8. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned. 7. At the very outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has not properly evaluated the testimonial value of PW 3 Manjoor Alam and Moola PW 4, to prove the factum of accident. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents refuted the aforesaid argument and urged that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in appreciating the testimonial value of PW 3 and 4, who are eye witnesses to the accident. 9. A close scrutiny of statement of PW 3 reveals that he was sitting on the pillion of the scooter, being driven by deceased at the time of accident. It is categorically stated on oath by PW 3 that he along with the deceased were going to Kapasan on the left side of the road and suddenly the aforesaid Jeep being driven by Hari Singh rashly and negligently came from wrong direction and collided with the scooter. Nothing has been brought to my notice from the statements of PW 3 which may lead to discredit the veracity of PW 3 who himself was injured in the accident. 10. PW 4 is also an eye-witness. He has also given eye witness account of the accident and there is nothing to discredit his testimonial value. 11. In my considered opinion the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the testimonial value of PW 3 and 4 therefore the argument contrary to it is hereby repelled. 12. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the claimants have failed to prove that the Jeep in question was being driven rashly and negligently. 13. I am of the view that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, principle of 'Res ipsa Loquitor' is clearly attracted. The graphic description given by PW 3 and 4, eye witnesses, lead me to believe that the Jeep in question was being driven rashly and negligently which caused fatal accident. The finding recorded by Tribunal on the question of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep in question at the time of accident is based on cogent and convincing reasons with which I am in full agreement. 14. The finding recorded by Tribunal on the question of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep in question at the time of accident is based on cogent and convincing reasons with which I am in full agreement. 14. The second limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not applied correct multiplier while computing the compensation which the claimants are entitled to receive from the appellants. Suffice it to say in this regard that claimants have examined PW 2, Gopal Lal Dadhich, Manager of Somani Mosaic Tiles where the deceased was working and was drawing Rs. 600/- as monthly salary. The claimants have also adduced certificate from High Secondary School, Kapasan, disclosing the date of birth of deceased-Balu Ram to be 13.7.1957, according to which the age of deceased comes to 28 and half years at the time of accident. It is to be noticed that for working in private factory like Somani Mosaic Tiles there is no age of superannuation. A person can work upto the age of 60 years, depending upon his mental and physical health. It is matter of common knowledge that longevity of life in this country has increased. In absence of any evidence adduced in rebuttal by the appellants the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal cannot be questioned on the basis of imagination. 15. Even at the modest computation the contribution of deceased Balu Ram towards his family could not be less than Rs. 300/- per month. Taking the normal span of life to be 60 years even then the deceased would have lived for another 31 and a half years whereas the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of only 30 years. 16. In the present case, negligence of Kalu Singh, driver of the Jeep in question is apparent on the face of record. It is to be noticed that at the time of accident the Jeep was being driven by his son whereas he was in-charge of the Jeep. It is true that the Jeep was on official duty therefore either it was driven at the instance of Kalu Singh or by his grossest negligence it was being driven by his son Hari Singh at the time of accident Are would be immaterial. In both ways the appellant-Panchyat Samiti, Kapasan would be vicariously responsible for the negligent act of its driver-Kalu Singh. In both ways the appellant-Panchyat Samiti, Kapasan would be vicariously responsible for the negligent act of its driver-Kalu Singh. The appellants cannot be allowed to escape their vicarious liability for the grossest negligence of driver Kalu Singh who was in-charge of the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal has correctly addressed this question, fixing vicarious liability upon the appellants with which I am at one. 17. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, I decline to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed with costs, assessed to Rs. 2,000/-and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby affirmedAppeal Dismissed with cost. *******