JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.2.96 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- In favour of respondent claimants (for short 'the claimants') and against the appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the appellant Union of India has filed the Instant appeal. 2. The facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal, are that on 8.11.88 at about 9 PM, deceased Hari Ram was hit by a metador bearing number RNK 1877 belonging to Border Security Force (B.S.F.) of Union of India (U.O.I.). The said accident took place in front of house of Dr. Hari Krishna. It was averred by the claimant that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the metador vehicle noticed above by its driver Mohd. Aslam. This accident was promptly reported to the police. A crime report was registered, bearing F.I.R. No. 122/88 for offences under section 279-304A I.P.C. read with Section 89/118A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').After usual investigation, police filed challan against Shri Mohd. Aslam, driver of the metador. Before the Tribunal, the claimants produced A.W. 1 Janki widow of deceased Hari Ram; A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar an eye witness of the occurrence; A.W. 3 Khinv Singh Bhati, S.H.O., Police Station Anoopgarh, the Investigating Officer; A.W. 4 Dr. Dalipa Ram, who conducted autopsy of the deceased Hari Ram. The appellant produced its driver Mohd. Aslam D.W. 1, Kishan Kumar D.W. 2 & Rajendra Singh D.W. 3. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the said accident was result of rash and negligent driving of metador No. RNK 1877 belonging to B.S.F. of U.O.I. While computing the compensation, the Tribunal assessed and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned as well as the record of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. V.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants contended that no such accident was caused by the aforenoticed metador belonging to the B.S.F. and the said accident was caused by some other vehicle. 2,25,000/- as compensation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned as well as the record of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. V.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants contended that no such accident was caused by the aforenoticed metador belonging to the B.S.F. and the said accident was caused by some other vehicle. He further contended that the injuries which the deceased sustained, cannot be said to have been caused by a vehicular accident but they appear to have been caused by a weapon like Lathi. It was also contended that the alleged eye witness A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar has not been named in the police case and, therefore, he being a chance witness, his testimony is not worth reliance. To support his contention, he relied on site map Ex. 2-A & site inspection note Ex. 2-AA. In the site inspection note at place B, a shirt, cheddar (bed sheet) and slippers of the deceased were shown. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the judgment of the Tribunal and contended that A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar @ Billu is an independent natural eye witness, inasmuch as his name finds in the police case: his statement was recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.PC. soon after the accident; in the EI.R.Ex. 1-A lodged by Balwant Ram, brother of the deceased, the name of Naresh Kumar @ Billu thekedar finds place. Thus, it cannot be said that A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar is a chance witness. He further contended that merely because dead body of the deceased was found without shirt, it cannot be said that it was a case of assault by lathi. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions, carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, documentary evidence produced and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Tribunal. 7. A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar stated on oath before the Tribunal that on 8.11.88 at about 9 PM, while he was closing his shop, a metador of B.S.F. came from Rawala side and was proceeding towards Rojadi. The said metador was being driven at a great speed with one head light on. Hari Ram was hit by the said metador. On hearing cries, he and Dr. Hari Kishan went at the site. The driver of the metador stopped the vehicle for two minutes and thereafter he fled away with the vehicle. The said metador was being driven at a great speed with one head light on. Hari Ram was hit by the said metador. On hearing cries, he and Dr. Hari Kishan went at the site. The driver of the metador stopped the vehicle for two minutes and thereafter he fled away with the vehicle. Family members of Hari Ram were i intimated through Budh Ram and Lalu Ram on a tractor. At about 2 AM in the night, Balwant, the brother of the deceased, came on the spot. He stated that they wanted to stop the vehicle but the driver of the B.S.F. took away the vehicle. He categorically stated that the metador, bearing number RNK 1877, caused the accident as it was being driven at a great speed, rashly and negligently by its driver. He stated that the accident took place in front of them and further stated that he is also known as Billu. The statement of this witness further finds corroboration from the F.I.R. Ex. 1-A, site map Ex. 2-A, site inspection note Ex. 2-AA, charge sheet Ex. 14-A and the mechanical report Ex. 11-A. The statement of Billu @ Naresh Kumar recorded by the police on 9.11.88 under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also on record. In the calendar of witnesses, this witness has been cited as a .witness of prosecution. He is an independent witness having a provision shop near the site of the accident. Thus, his presence at his shop, at the relevant time of the accident cannot be doubted.A.W. 3 Khinv Singh Shati, S.H.O., Annopgarh, who investigated the matter, has proved the F.I.R. E. 1-A, site map Ex. 2-A, site inspection note Ex. 2-AA, fard Surat hall Ex. 3 and panchnama Ex. 4. This witness stated that from the statements of the witnesses recorded by him under section 161 Cr.PC. and other investigation, he came to the conclusion that the said accident was caused by Mohd. Aslam, who was driving metador No. RNK 1877 belonging to B.S.F. rashly and negligently. On investigation, he found that the front bumper of the vehicle was having a bend and such bend can only result if the vehicle is dashed against a perso. A.W. 4 Dr. Dalipa Ram has proved the injuries sustained by the deceased and the post-mortem report Ex. 13-A. The injuries sustained by the deceased were anti-mortem in nature. On investigation, he found that the front bumper of the vehicle was having a bend and such bend can only result if the vehicle is dashed against a perso. A.W. 4 Dr. Dalipa Ram has proved the injuries sustained by the deceased and the post-mortem report Ex. 13-A. The injuries sustained by the deceased were anti-mortem in nature. The injuries were found on the skull, fracture of ribs from 4th to 9th left side, middle of shaft, left thigh, left shoulder and right shoulder. Thus, from perusal of the post-mortem report and reading of statement of A.W.4 Dr. Dalipa Ram, it is established that the deceased sustained numerous injuires on his person, both on the left and right side of his body, as also on the skull. From the statements of these witnesses and the documentary evidence as discussed above, it cannot be said that the deceased sustained injuries only on the fight side of the body. These injuries cannot be said to have been caused by a Lathi. From a reading of the statements of the witnesses produced by the claimants, it is established that Hari Ram sustained injuries due to the accident caused by the aforesaid metador. The opinion of the doctor, who conducted autopsy, also goes to show that the deceased sustained injuries due to road accident. In these circumstances, possibility of assault on him, is completely ruled out. D.W. 1 Mohd. Aslam came out with a case that on the relevant date, in the night, he was going with a Naka party and when reached near 7 KND, he found a naked person lying on the road. His statement does not find any corroboration. D.W. 2 Kishan Kumar is not an witness of the occurrence. D.W. 3 Rajendra Singh also made a statement that when he was proceeding in the said Metador, he found a naked person lying on the road. Both these witnesses denied the facturn of the accident. D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 are the employees of the B.S.F., therefore, they are interested witnesses. In Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by LR's v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 ACJ 993 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "The Tribunal and the High Court rejected the version of Abdul Khalique primarily on the ground that there was no corroboration to his testimony. In Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by LR's v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 ACJ 993 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "The Tribunal and the High Court rejected the version of Abdul Khalique primarily on the ground that there was no corroboration to his testimony. We are of the view that the courts below were not justified in disbelieving the testimony of Abdul Khalique. He was a disinterested witness who was having tea in a restaurant at a distance of about 15/20 feet from the place of occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show that he was trying to help the claimants in any manner or was not a truthful witness. On the other hand, the Nagar Mahapalika produced before the Tribunal the driver of the vehicle and an Assistant Engineer who were its employees. Both were interested witnesses. The Nagar Mahapalika did not produce even a single independent witness to support its version. The Tribunal and the High Court fell Into patent error in preferring the evidence of two wholly Interested witnesses to that of Abdul Khalique who was an independent witness and whose presence on the spot could not be doubted." 8. The appellants did not produce even a single independent witness to support its version that Hari Ram died due to assault or by accident caused by some other vehicle. In my opinion, the Tribunal rightly relied on the evidence of independent eye witness A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar as against wholly interested witnesses D.W.1 to D.W. 3. The presence of A.W. 2 Naresh Kumar at the spot could not be doubted inasmuch as he is having a shop near the site of the accident. Moreso, the testimony of A.W. 2 is fully corroborated by other evidence noticed above. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the metador Modh. Aslam negligent for the said accident. 9. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased person was a young person of 35 years of age having monthly earning of Rs. 1,500/-. The Tribunal determined the monthly contribution to the claimants @ Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, the annual dependency was taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 12,000/- and it applied the multiplier of 15 years' purchase-factor. The Tribunal has failed to take Into account the future prospects of the deceased. 1,500/-. The Tribunal determined the monthly contribution to the claimants @ Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, the annual dependency was taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 12,000/- and it applied the multiplier of 15 years' purchase-factor. The Tribunal has failed to take Into account the future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, mental and physical pain, Rs. 5,000/- were awarded to respondents No. 2 to 8 for loss of love and affection etc. The amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. While computing the compensation If future prospects of the deceased are taken Into consideration, then the annual dependency and loss of income would come much more than what the Tribunal has assessed and awarded. It is settled law that In appeal the quantum Is interfered only If the compensation awarded is inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, for the death of a young person of 35 years, leaving as many as 8 dependents of him, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive. Thus, I find no error in the computation of compensation. 10. No other point was argued. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find not merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******