JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J.- This appeal under Section 1 TJ of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 13-11-2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Roorkee, (in short the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2002 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25.400/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Aggrieved, the U.P.S.R.T.C. has come up in appeal. 2. Relevant facts were that on 17-12-2001 at about 4-30 p.m. in village Kurdi (Hardwar), Rishipal, aged 38 years, driver of Jeep No. UP 14 J-3502 ha1ted it for taking. passengers. In the meantime. Roadways bus No. UP 7C-0792, coming from Mangalore side at a high speed and driven rashly and negligent, hit the jeep with the result Rishipal and some others sustained grievous injuries and died while few others were injured. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Hence the claim petition was filed by his dependants/legal heirs for compensation of Rs.22 15,000/-. 3. The appellant filed written statement alleging therein that the U.P.S.R.T.C. bus No. UP 07-6792 was bound for Delhi from Rishikesh on the relevant day and when at 4.15 p.m. it reached near village Kuradi, Jeep No.14 J-3502 came from the opposite direction and while the said Jeep tried to overtake another vehicle No. XGX 693. it dashed against eight side of the UPSRTC bus with the result hath the Jeeps went the road and fell in a gorge. The accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the Jeeps. It was pleaded that none of the drivers of the Jeeps was holding a valid driving licence, valid permit etc. ; that the claim petition was had ror non joinder of owner of the Jeep and its insurer and that the quantum of compensation was excessive. 4. Learned Tribunal framed following Issues: 5. (1) Whether on 17-12-2001 at about. 4-30 p.m. at village Kuradi, district Hardwar, the accident resulting in the death of Rishipal occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Roadways Bus No. UP 7C-6792 ? (2) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver or Jeep No. UP 14 J -3502 as alleged in para no. 14 of the written statement ? (2) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver or Jeep No. UP 14 J -3502 as alleged in para no. 14 of the written statement ? (3) Whether the petition is had or non-joinder of owner and insurance company of the Jeep '? (4) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation'? If so, to what amount and from whom ? 6. Learned Tribunal took lip Issue No. 3 first ror decision and the tribunal was of the opinion that the claimants 'preferred claim against the appellant's bus driver. It was held that in case it was found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep, the claimant will not be entitled to compensation, therefore, the petition was found maintainable. Issue Nos 1 and 2 were taken up together and it was held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the U.P.S.R.T.C. bus alone. Ultimately. the learned Tribunal determined the loss of income at Rs. 2,100/- per month. and after deducting 1!3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, monthly loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 1,4001- thereby Rs. 16,800/- per annum. In view of the Apex Court judgments in the case of "C.M. Kerala S.R. T.C. V Susamma Thomas" 1(1994) 2 SCC, 176] and "U.P. Slate Road Tansport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others" 1(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases. 362] multiplier of 13 was applied thereby total compensation of Rs. 16,800/x 13=2.18,400/- was awarded to the claimants. In addition to it, sums of Rs. 2.000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5.000/- towards loss of consortium, thereby total compensation of Rs. 2.25.400/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. In support of appeal. the appellant contended that the finding of the Tribunal on the point of rash and negligence was not tenable. Finding of the Tribunal on the point of non-joinder of owner and insurer of Jeep Nos. UP 14 J-3502 and Jeep No. JGXK 0693 and quantum was also attacked. 8. The claimants. in documentary evidencc, filed certified copies of ELR. (20-C/2), charge-sheet (2] -C/2), site-plan (22-C/2) to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. The testimony of P.W 2 Vinesh Kumar is most relevant on this score. UP 14 J-3502 and Jeep No. JGXK 0693 and quantum was also attacked. 8. The claimants. in documentary evidencc, filed certified copies of ELR. (20-C/2), charge-sheet (2] -C/2), site-plan (22-C/2) to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. The testimony of P.W 2 Vinesh Kumar is most relevant on this score. This witness has given ocular account of the accident by stating that the accident occurred in this presence. According to him, at the relevant time, the deceased Rishipal was taking passengers at Kuchcha side of the road. The Roadways bus first hit the Jeep of the deceased and then hit another Jeep. This witness also informed the family of the deceased. He categorically tatedth1t the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the Roadways bus. This witness was cross-examined hut nothing material could he brought on record so as to indicate that he was not giving true account of the accident. On the other hand, the appellant examined D.W 1 Mahipal Singh, the driver of the offending bus. In his testimony D.W 1 has tried to absolve himself from the res possibility of rash and negligent driving, but in the cross-examination, he admitted that criminal case was pending against him on the charge-sheet filed by the police. In his testimony, he could not show anything for his innocence. The charge-sheet against the driver and site plan prepared b the police during investigation of the case clearly indicate to the guilt of the driver. The learned Tribal has elaborately dealt the point of rash and negligence in the impugned judgment and also discussed the site plan. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal rightly held the driver of the offending bus responsible for the accident. 9. Once it is proved that the driver of the offending bus alone was responsible for the accident, it is immaterial to consider the point relating to non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Jeeps. When on the basis of evidence on record, it stood proved that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus, the impleadment of owner and insurer of the ill-fated Jeep was not at all necessary. 10. Now, the only point for consideration remains quantum of compensation. The claimants mentioned the income . f the deceased at Rs. 6,000/per month. 10. Now, the only point for consideration remains quantum of compensation. The claimants mentioned the income . f the deceased at Rs. 6,000/per month. In her statement, Smt. Santosh, P.W. 1, stated that the deceased was plying his own Jeep and he used to do agriculture and from both the sources, he used to earn Rs. 6000-7000/- per month. Claimants filed copy of Khatauni showing that the deceased was joint tenure holder of land measuring 2.444 hectares. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,100/- as mentioned earlier. Assessment of this amount as monthly income of the deceased is quite rational, and proper. The age of the deceased was determined by the Tribunal at 39 years. For determining the multiplicand the Tribunal has relied on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in two cases, referred to above and has applied multiplier of 13. In our opinion, the multiplier applied was just and proper and accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on the point of quantum of compensation docs not require any interference. Compensation of Rs. 2,25.400/- and the interest of 9% per annum thereon was just and proper. 11. In the result, the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 13-11-2002 is affirmed. No order as to costs. 13. The amount in deposit with this Court be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimants.