JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 1.2.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara (for short, the Tribunal" hereinafter) whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,42,500/- in favour of the appellants in S.B. Civil Misc. 5 Appeal No. 308/1997 (arising out of Claim Case No. 136/93) and Rs. 5,000/-in favour of the appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 309/1997 (arising out of Claim Case No. 25/94). Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award relating to one and the same accident, therefore, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as also the record of the Tribunal. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal fell in error in not awarding compensation for loss of income in both the cases. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the 15 judgment and award impugned. 4. Deceased Sadiq Ali, aged about 35 years, died in motor vehicle accident on 29.7.1993. He was travelling in mini-bus bearing No. RJ03/P-282 from Kushalgarh to Banswara. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the bus turned turtle. Sadiq Ali sustained grievous injuries in the accident and succumbed to the same. Appellant Ku. Nafisa also sustained some injuries on her person. The legal representatives of the deceased Sadiq Ali as well as injured Ku. Nafisa have field claim applications before the Tribunal. The case as set out by the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased was running a business of cloth in Quwait and from the business he was earning Rs. 2,00,000/- annually. In support of this version of annual income the claimants, however, did not produce any documentary evidence except oral statement of PW 1 Smt. Maleka Bai, widow of the deceased. She stated that due to crisis in the middle-east, the shop run by her husband was looted. She further stated that her husband never sent money to her through a Bank but he used to send Rs. 35,000/- per month with some known persons.She named the persons who allegedly brought the money at behest of her husband. She stated that two FDRs for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- were also obtained by her husband. She further stated that her husband never sent money to her through a Bank but he used to send Rs. 35,000/- per month with some known persons.She named the persons who allegedly brought the money at behest of her husband. She stated that two FDRs for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- were also obtained by her husband. In her statement, she stated that her husband was in Quwait for 15 years. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to establish the income of the deceased as claimed in the claim application. There is no record of transfer of currency to India by her husband. Taking this fact into consideration, the Tribunal determined the dependency at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per annum. This amount was multiplied by 16 years purchase factor. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 15,000/ for loss of love and affection and company and Rs. 5,000/- were awarded for expenses incurred on cremation. Rs. 2,500/- were awarded as compensation for loss of estate. Thus the Tribunal awarded total compensation in favour of 1 the claimants to the tune of Rs. 3,42,500/- against the respondents. 5. I have carefully gone through the statement of the claimant and the material on record. There is no reliable evidence on record to establish that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum from any business. In s the absence of any documentary evidence the Tribunal rightly reached to the finding as to income of the deceased and annual dependency. The finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. 6. So far as claimant-appellant Ku. Nafisa's appeal is concerned, she received five simple injuries. The Tribunal awarded compensation in her favour of Rs. 5,000/-. No injury was such in nature as could have resulted in any disablement. In my considered view, the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 5,000/- for these simple injuries sustained in the accident by the claimant. In this view of the matter, the compensation awarded in her favour cannot be said to be too low and. hence calls for no interference. 7. No other point was urged before me. 8. In the result, both the appeals fails and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Both Appeals Dismissed. *******