Judgment Manak Mohta, J.-The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-RSRTC against the Judgment and Award dated 210.1995 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in Claim Case No. 71/91 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,57,000/-as compensation in favour of claimant-respondents and directed the non-claimant-appellant to pay 50% of that Award i.e., Rs. 78,500/-plus interest @ 12% per annum to the claimant-respondents. 2.Briefly stated the facts of case are that on 10.06.1991 bus bearing No. RPN-3139 belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the RSRTC), in which alongwith other passengers Bhanwar Singh (deceased) was also travelling, at around 3 AM in the morning, the bus started from Phalodi to Bikaner and reached near Gajner Fata just before Bikaner at about 6.30-7.00 AM, at that time a truck bearing No. RRN 2289 was coming from opposite side i.e., from the side of Bikaner at a high speed, RSRTC-bus which too was being driven at a high speed, collided with each other. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of both the drivers. In the said accident, the truck-driver Bachhu Khan, other persons namely; Khuda Bux, Bhanwar Singh and Laxman Singh died and the passengers sitting in the RSRTC-bus, namely, Sohan Lal, Smt. Salamat Bano, Rajesh Bhargave, Mani Ram, Nand Kumar, Chuna Ram, Chhagan Lal and Mahadev sustained several injuries. It was further stated that the injured Nand Kumar, who was travelling in the said bus, gave report to Police Station, Gajner, upon which FIR was registered. After completion of thorough investigation, challan was filed against driver of RSRTC-bus Shri Abdul Gafar for the offence under Sections 304-A, 279, IPC and other like offences. As per the claimants, the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the aforesaid vehicles resulting in untimely death of Bhanwar Singh. A claim petition was filed by Smt. Rukman Kanwar widow and other heirs of the deceased Bhanwar Singh stating therein that due to untimely death in accident, they suffered loss of income. It was also stated in the petition that the age of Bahanwar Singh was 45 years and he was earning Rs. 2,000/-per month by plying camel-cart at the time of accident. They all were dependent upon the income of the deceased. It was also stated in the petition that the age of Bahanwar Singh was 45 years and he was earning Rs. 2,000/-per month by plying camel-cart at the time of accident. They all were dependent upon the income of the deceased. They also suffered loss of consortium, love and affection and mental agony, thus, under different heads compensation of Rs. 3,85,000/-was claimed. 3.A reply to the claim petition was submitted on behalf of Abdul Gaffar, driver of RSRTC bus (non-claimant-Respondent No. 10), who denied the contents of claim petition in toto and specifically stated that he started the bus at 3.00 AM from Phalodi for going to Bikaner and when he was passing, by Kolayat, he slowed down the speed of bus and took the bus on side and also stated that due to dusty-wind the road was not clearly visible and, therefore, he was plying the bus at the minimum of speed and the head-lights of bus were also switched on. It was further submitted that when he reached at Gajner Fata, he blew horn and gave dipper but at the turning, one truck suddenly came in front of the bus without its head-lights switched on and when he tried to turn the bus towards Ganjer road, the truck driver lost control over the truck and collided with the bus, as a result of which, the passengers sitting in the bus sustained injuries. He stated that the accident did not occur on account of negligence on his part but it was due to truck driver having lost control over his vehicle, as such the claim petition filed by the claimant may be rejected. 4.Non-claimant RSRTC in its reply admitted the factum of accident between truck and roadways-bus. It was stated that the bus was being plied under its ownership at a slow speed by its driver-Abdul Gaffar. It was further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. Thus, they cannot be made responsible for causing accident. 5.The non-claimant Nek Mohammed. (Respondent No. 11), who is owner of truck, has stated in his reply that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, who hit the truck, which was being driven carefully and slowly by its driver-Bachhu Khan. In the accident truck-driver Bachhu Khan and other persons died on the spot and many persons suffered injuries. (Respondent No. 11), who is owner of truck, has stated in his reply that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, who hit the truck, which was being driven carefully and slowly by its driver-Bachhu Khan. In the accident truck-driver Bachhu Khan and other persons died on the spot and many persons suffered injuries. He denied his liability for making payment of compensation to the claimants. 6.A reply to the claim petition was also submitted on behalf of Insurance Company of Truck No. RRN-2289 (Respondent No. 12) wherein it was stated that the insurance policy was in the name of one Aslam Bagani, who was the previous owner of said truck but on 01.05.1991 (i.e., before the accident took place,) he sold the said truck to one Nek Mohammed. It was further submitted that no intimation with regard to transfer of ownership of truck was given to the Insurance Company, which has to be submitted mandatorily within 14 days of the transaction, otherwise the insurance policy itself becomes ineffective. It was also submitted that the driver of truck was not responsible for causing the accident but the accident was caused due to dusty-wind, which is act of God. It was also submitted that the driver of truck was not responsible for causing the accident but the accident was caused due to dusty-wind, which is act of God. 7.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- cg djhc 7 cts xtusj jksj QkaVs ds ikl Þ 1& D;k fnukad 10-06-1991 dks lqj&chdkusM+ ij xtusj dh rjQ ls Vªd vkj-vkj-,u- 2289 dks Vªd pkyd us chdkusth o ykijokgh o xQyr ls pyk a cSBs [kqdj lkeus ls vkrh gqbZ cl vkj-,u-ih-3139 ds VDdj ekjh ftlls cl esnk cDk] Hkaojflga,oa y{e.kflag dh e`R;q gqbZ vkSj Jh lksguyky] lyker ckuksa] jkdsk HkkxZo] uUndqekj rFkk egknso ds pksVsa vk;h \ Hkk-l-izkFkhZx.k 2& D;k mä eR;q@{kfr;ksa ds fy; sizkFkhZx.k izfrdj ds :i esa jkf“k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ Hkk- l- izkFkhZx.k Vuk cl pkyd }kjk cl dks rs3& D;k mä nq?kZth o ykijokgh o xQyr ls pykus ds dkj.k gqbZ ftlds fy; s Vªd pkyd] ekfyd vkSj chek dEiuh mRrjnk;h ugha gSaA Hkk- la- vizkFkhZ ua- 4@5 4& D;k chek djkus ds le; Vªd dk ekfyd vlye ckxkuh Fkk ftlus nq?kZVuk ls igys Vªd dks usd eksgEen dks csp fn;k Fkk D;k blfy; s Vªd dh chek dEiuh mÙkjnk;h ugha gSaA Hkk-l- vizkFkhZ la- 5 =.k o fu;ks 5& D;k nq?kZVuk ds le; Vªd chek-r O;fDr ds fu;atu esa ugha pyk;k tk jgk Fkk vkSj bldk D;k izHkko iM+rkA Hkk-l- vizkFkhZ la- 5 Vuk dh lw 6& D;k Vªd ekfyd }kjk nq?kZpuk chek dEiuh dks ugha nh xbZ blfy;s chek dEiuh dk mRrjnkf;Ro ugha gSA Hkk-l- vizkFkhZ la- 5 7& D;k rst vka/kh vkus ds dkj.k nq?kZVuk gqbZ Fkh u fd pkydksa dks rsa }kjk okguksth] ykijokgh o xQyr ls pykus ds dkj.k blfy;s] vizkFkhZx.k mRrjnk; h ugha gSA Hkk-l-a vizkFkhZ la- 5 8& vuqrks"k \ß 8.After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by their drivers resulting in causing death of Bachhu Khan (truck-driver), Khuda Bux, Bhanwar Singh and Laxman Singh and in causing several injuries to Sohan Lal, Smt. Salamat Bano, Rajesh Bhargave, Mani Ram, Nand Kumar, Chuna Ram, Chhagan Lal and Mahadev. Thus, the learned Tribunal further held that both the drivers were equally responsible for causing the accident and determined their responsibility fifty-fifty. Thus, the learned Tribunal further held that both the drivers were equally responsible for causing the accident and determined their responsibility fifty-fifty. The learned Tribunal further determined, with regard to the present Claim Petition No. 71 of 1991 filed by Smt. Rukman Kanwar and others under appeal, total amount of compensation was determined Rs. 1,57,000/-plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in favour of the claimants and directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the total determined amount of Rs. 78,500/-in the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. 9.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant-RSRTC has filed the instant appeal before this Court. 10.I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the records of case. 11.During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material and gave erroneous findings on the issues. It was contended that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck No. RRN 2289. The offending truck driver did not care to see RSRTC bus and hit the bus and caused accident resulting in injuries to several passengers of the bus and causing death of some persons. It was further stated that due to dusty wind, the road was not clearly visible, therefore, the driver of the RSRTC bus slowed down the speed and stayed the bus on the side of the road but the offending truck was plying at a high speed, collided with bus. For that, the driver of the bus as well as RSRTC cannot be held responsible. NAW 2 Abdul Gaffar has stated that the offending truck was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed and there is no rebuttal from the other side. In these contentions, it was submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, is not sustainable and fixing the liability fifty-fifty in causing accident is not sustainable. It was also contended that the exorbitant compensation has been claimed and the age and income of the deceased Bhanwar Singh have not been proved by any documentary evidence. It was also contended that the exorbitant compensation has been claimed and the age and income of the deceased Bhanwar Singh have not been proved by any documentary evidence. The learned Tribunal on the assumption and presumption drew erroneous conclusion and awarded a huge amount of compensation in favour of the claimant that is not tenable. On these submissions, it was prayed that the Judgment and Award of the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 12.On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company refuted the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-RSRTC. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said accident did not occur solely due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. Thus, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be made responsible for full payment. It was contended that the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of the persons who were travelling in the RSRTC bus and were injured in the same accident, rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to negligence of both the drivers. The suggestion of dust-wind has been denied by the witnesses. Further NAW. 2 Abdul Gaffar in his statement has stated that he did not stop the bus during dusty wind. In this way, the conclusion is based on evidence that should be maintained. The learned Tribunal has rightly determined the responsibility of both the vehicles in causing accident equally. It was prayed that no interference is required and the appeal may be dismissed. 13.I have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the finding on each issue. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, the persons who were travelling in RSRTC bus and got injured have appeared and they have stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. In this respect, I have seen the statement of PW. 2 Sohan Lal and PW. 3 Nand Kumar. PW. 2 Sohan Lal has stated that both the vehicles were at high speed and collided with each other. He has also stated that the passengers sitting in the bus namely Bhanwar Singh, Laxman Singh, Khuda Bux and driver of the truck Bachhu Khan died in accident and other passengers near-about 15-20 were sitting in the bus, got injured in the said accident. He has also stated that the passengers sitting in the bus namely Bhanwar Singh, Laxman Singh, Khuda Bux and driver of the truck Bachhu Khan died in accident and other passengers near-about 15-20 were sitting in the bus, got injured in the said accident. He has also denied that at that time, there was any dusty wind and due to that nothing was visible. PW. 3 Nand Kumar, was also one of the passengers in RSRTC bus and got injured in that accident. He has reported the matter to the Police Authorities. PW . 3 Nand Kumar has stated in his statement that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the respective vehicles. He has also stated that in accident Bachhu Khan (truck-driver), Khuda Bux, Bhanwar Singh and Laxman Singh have expired and Sohan Lal, Smt. Salamat Bano, Rajesh Bhargave, Mani Ram, Nand Kumar, Chuna Ram, Chhagan Lal and Mahadev sustained several injuries. These witnesses have stated that it is wrong that due to dusty wind, nothing was visible. It is also revealed from the records that the police authorities, on report, inspected the site just after the incident and they prepared the site-plan Exhibit-2 in which, position of the vehicles has been shown. It is also revealed from the inspection note that the accident took place on the middle of the road. It is also revealed that in accident, the driver of the truck also expired and so many persons were injured and some persons had expired. The impact of the accident can be assessed by seeing the casualty. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the material has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers. During trial, the driver of the bus NAW . 2 Abdul Gaffar, in his cross-examination, has stated that he did not stop the bus due to dusty wind. Thus, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant are having no force and the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal is to be maintained. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the material available on record, has rightly held that both the drivers were equally responsible for causing the accident. 14.I have also considered other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation. In this respect, PW. 1 Mst. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the material available on record, has rightly held that both the drivers were equally responsible for causing the accident. 14.I have also considered other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation. In this respect, PW. 1 Mst. Rukman Kanwar widow of the deceased Bhanwar Singh has appeared and stated that her husband was earning Rs. 2,000/ - per month by plying camel cart. He was the only earning member in her family. The claimants are the widow, and children of the deceased Bhanwar Singh. Some of them are minors also. It is also stated by PW . 1 Mst. Rukman Kanwar that the age of her husband was 45 years at the time of accident but in the Post-mortem Report, the age of the deceased has been shown 50 years. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the available material, has taken the age of the deceased 50 years and estimated the monthly income of Rs. 1,200/-per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses Rs. 8,00/-per month assessed loss to the claimants and looking to the age of the deceased the multiplier of 15 has been applied and on that basis, the loss of income has been determined Rs. 1,44,000/-(800x12x15). Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-Jeep fare Rs. 500/-plus medical treatment expenses Rs. 2,500/-total Rs. 13,000/-In this way, the learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,57,000/-that is not excessive. I have seen the finding of the learned Tribunal, that is most reasonable that is to be maintained. Further, the learned Tribunal on the basis of composite negligence that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers has rightly made the appellant responsible for the payment upto 50% of the total amount of compensation. I find no infirmity and irregularity in the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal. 15.In the result, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be disallowed. The Judgment and Award of the learned Tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is disallowed. No order as to costs.