JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.12.1997 in Claim Case No. 4 of 1994 by Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Rewa allowing the application of the claimants-respondents 1 to 4 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and granting a total compensation of, Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimants. The claimants-respondents 1 to 4 filed an application under section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on account of death of deceased Laxman Singh Tomar in a motor accident by Motorcycle on 24.6.1993. The appellant was admittedly driving the said motor cycle at the time of the accident. The deceased at the time of the accident was coming back to his home at about 9.45 p.m. by his Luna. According to the claimants, the accident was caused by the appellant, who was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently: As a result of the said accident, deceased Laxman Singh sustained several, injuries' including on his head which proved fatal. He Vasa Government Servant earning about Rs. 300/- per month and was aged about 56 years at the time of the accident. The appellant as well as the respondent No.6 contested the claim. The appellant denied that he caused the accident. According to him, the deceased had already met with an accident and was lying on the road. The appellant had only taken him to the hospital. He, therefore, denied his liability to pay the amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal, after assessment of evidence, recorded a categorical finding that· the appellant caused the accident and that the accident occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the appellant in driving his motor-cycle. The amount of compensation was assessed and determined at Rs. 50,000/-. The award of the above amount was granted in favour of the claimants-respondents 1 to 4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the accident was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle and the evidence led by the claimants, in this regard is infirm. It may be noted in the above connection that the statement of Gangesh Kumar alias Raju (A W 3) clearly establishes that the deceased met with an accident, by the motor cycle being driven by the appellant. It may be noted in the above connection that the statement of Gangesh Kumar alias Raju (A W 3) clearly establishes that the deceased met with an accident, by the motor cycle being driven by the appellant. The said witness has stated that he was following the deceased when the accident occurred. He has also stated that the appellant was driving the motor-cycle at a very high speed. The statement as above is found ~ to be reliable and there is no reason why the said witness would have implicated the appellant instead of the real culprit had the deceased met with an accident with another vehicle and not that of the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of his motor cycle by the appellant is fully justified and calls for no interference. The said finding is affirmed. The learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to urge that the compensation is on the higher-side, as the family members of the deceased have been given compassionate amount and they are receiving pensionary benefits on account of death of deceased Laxman Singh. However, under the Act minimum liability is for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The award as above appears to be in fact on lower-side, rather than being excessive, as has been tried to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above, the appeal has no substance. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.