JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. 1. The present appeal by the owner of the vehicle, under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Old Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.6.1982 passed by the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Judge, Nainital (for short the Tribunal) passed in Claim Petition No. 139 of 1979, Smt. Lila Rani Bakshi and Ors. v. Janardan and Ors., whereby a compensation of 96,000 was awarded to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum. Out of this amount, sum of Rs. 50,000 was payable by the Insurance Company and the remaining 46,000 was ordered to be paid by the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. 2. Relevant facts necessary for a just decision of the appeal are that claimant-respondents, who are legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 13,50,000 for the death of Ravinder Nath Bakshi in a vehicular accident which occurred on 3.7.1979 between Kashipur and Ramnagar near village Pratappur involving truck No. UTF-3744, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and hit the motor cycle of Ravinder Nath Bakshi with the result Ravinder Nath died on the spot as a result of injuries suffered by him. It was alleged that the deceased was well built, aged 47 years and earning about Rs. 3,500 per month from agriculture and farming at the time of his accidental death. 3. The owner-appellant resisted the petition and denied the accident as result of rash and negligent driving, rather it was asserted that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. It was pleaded that the deceased was coming on motor bike at a high speed and he could not control the motor cycle and struck against the rear left wheel of the truck. Quantum of compensation has been questioned. The driver of the truck, Jamil Ahmad had also taken similar grounds as that of the owner in his written statement. 4. The insurer of the truck contested the claim petition by filing its written statement. However, the insurer had taken the same defence as taken by the owner and driver, but has also pleaded that the vehicle was insured only for Rs. 50,000. 5. 4. The insurer of the truck contested the claim petition by filing its written statement. However, the insurer had taken the same defence as taken by the owner and driver, but has also pleaded that the vehicle was insured only for Rs. 50,000. 5. The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues, recorded the evidence led by the parties, heard them and after perusing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has elaborately dealt the evidence and relying upon the testimony of two eyewitnesses-Makhan Singh, P.W. 5, and Shamendra Datt Sharma, P.W. 6, held that the accident resulting into fatal injuries to the deceased Ravinder Nath Bakshi was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck No, UTF-3744 alone. On the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has observed as under: Taking into account all these factors, the pecuniary loss of the legal heirs of the deceased must be assessed at Rs. 1,000 per month. In other words, their income from the agricultural holding of the deceased has been reduced by 1/3rd then what it was during the life-time of the deceased.... The loss has occurred in two ways. Firstly, it is no more possible for his widow to take the land of others on Theka and to cultivate it so as to earn income thereby. Secondly, for lack of supervision of a male family members, the land of 10.39 acres owned by the deceased is not likely to give as much yield as it would have in case the husband of the lady had been alive to supervise the agricultural operations over his field. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal assessed pecuniary loss to the claimants at Rs. 2,16,000.00 which was calculated @ Rs. 1,000 per month for a span of 18 years taking the longevity of life upto the age of 65 years had the deceased not died accidental death. Even after computing, pecuniary loss to the legal heirs @ of Rs. 1,000 per month, the learned Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd from the said amount of 2,16,000 towards personal expenses, thereby a further sum of Rs. 72,000 was left out and the remainder came to Rs. 1,44,000. Apart from above, the Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd of Rs. 1,44,000 for lump sum payment of compensation and the pecuniary loss was calculated Rs. 1,44,000 (-) 48,000 : Rs. 96,000. 7. 72,000 was left out and the remainder came to Rs. 1,44,000. Apart from above, the Tribunal further deducted 1/3rd of Rs. 1,44,000 for lump sum payment of compensation and the pecuniary loss was calculated Rs. 1,44,000 (-) 48,000 : Rs. 96,000. 7. The impugned award has been assailed on the ground that the findings are not based on evidence on record especially on the point of rash and negligent driving. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record including the impugned judgment and award. 9. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the owner has admitted the accident and has raised the plea that it was the deceased himself, who was driving his motor bike rashly and negligently. This is a case in which the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' was fully applicable. From the side of the claimants besides other witnesses, two eye-witnesses of the fact were produced as P.W. 5 Makhan Singh and P.W. 6 Shamendra Dart. It is not disputed that F.I.R. of the accident was also lodged with the police and the driver of the offending truck was also apprehended by the witnesses and given in the custody of the police. The learned Tribunal has so elaborately discussed the issue that it covered from page No. 4 to page 11. From the side of the owner no such evidence was led to substantiate his stand, that it was the negligence of the deceased, though specific averments were made in the pleadings. The lodging of F.I.R. against the driver, his handing over to the custody of the police soon after the accident coupled with the testimony of eye-witnesses lead to only inference that the driver of the truck in question was sole responsible. for the accident. I hold accordingly. 10. The quantum of compensation has not been seriously challenged. It would suffice to mention that I have already narrated the details of deductions made by the Tribunal. Since no cross-objection or counter-claim has been preferred by the claimant-respondents, I refrain from touching the issue on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal having thrashed out the monthly loss @ Rs. 1,000 per month and having calculated the total loss to the dependants at Rs. 2,16,000, ultimately decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 96,000 only. Since no cross-objection or counter-claim has been preferred by the claimant-respondents, I refrain from touching the issue on the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal having thrashed out the monthly loss @ Rs. 1,000 per month and having calculated the total loss to the dependants at Rs. 2,16,000, ultimately decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 96,000 only. Even no amounts towards loss of consortium, love and affection, mental agony, funeral expenses, etc. were granted. Since claimants have not challenged the issue, I uphold the finding on the quantum of compensation. 11. There is no force in the present appeal preferred by the owner of the truck, who was found liable to pay sum of Rs. 46,000 jointly and severally with the driver which deserves to be dismissed outright. 12. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The award under challenge is upheld. No order as to costs