JUDGMENT P.C. : Hon. B.S. Verma, J. This is owner’s appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 5.7.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tehri Garhwal (for short the Tribunal), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 19 of 1984, Harbans Lal Sahni Vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby a compensation of Rs. 22,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent against the opposite party no. 2 – appellant. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Anil Sahni, aged about 28 years, a contractor and supplier by profession earning Rs. 500/- per month lost his life in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 6.4.1984 at 6 a.m. near Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal involving Jeep No. URU 4279 belonging to the appellant as a result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Junior Engineer U.P. Thapaliyal. According to the claimant on the fateful day the Junior Engineer of the appellant-department namely U.S. Thapaliyal asked the deceased to accompany him from Tehri to New Tehri. At about 6 a.m. when the Jeep reached near Chamba, it met with an accident and fell into a Khadd with the result the deceased Anil Sahni as well as the person driving the Jeep sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Doon Hospital at Dehradun for treatment where he succumbed to his injuries on 9.4.1984. The claimant being the father of the deceased filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2,05,000/- on different counts. 3. The opposite party no. 1 State of U.P. filed its written statement. It denied the allegations made in the claim petition. It was asserted that the accident had taken place with the Jeep No. URM-4779 belonging to the appellant Nirman Nigam, which is a juristic person, therefore, the State of U.P. had no concern with the accident claim. Opposite Party No. 2 filed its separate written statement and contested the claim petition. Date, time and place of the accident were admitted. It was contended that the jeep in question was owned by the opposite parties. It was asserted that in the night intervening 5/6.4.1984, the illfated Jeep was parked in New Tehri along with other vehicles of the opposite party no. Date, time and place of the accident were admitted. It was contended that the jeep in question was owned by the opposite parties. It was asserted that in the night intervening 5/6.4.1984, the illfated Jeep was parked in New Tehri along with other vehicles of the opposite party no. 2; that in the morning of 6.4.1984, the driver of the jeep found the vehicle missing from its parking place. Thereafter a search was made and it was learnt that the Jeep had fallen in a gorge on way near Budogi village. When the employees of the O.P. No. 2 reached the spot, they found that the Jeep had fallen down in the Khud about 150 Mt. deep and two injured persons were lying nearby. One of them was identified as U.S. Thapliyal, Junior Engineer and the other to be one Anil Sahni. It was also asserted that both the injured were admitted in Doon Hospital and died there. According to Opposite Party No. 2 a theft of Jeep was committed. It was also asserted that the said Junior Engineer had no authority to take the vehicle. Deceased Anil Sahani was not a passenger or licensee of the answering Opposite Party. The deceased persons themselves were liable for taking possession of the jeep illegally and without any authority, therefore, the answering opposite party was not liable for any compensation. Before the Tribunal driver Ram Autar of the O.P. No. 2 made a statement under Order X, Rule 2 CPC to the effect that he was driver of the Jeep on 5.4.1984 and he had parked the Jeep no. URU 4279 on the road side at New Tehri, but in the morning of 6.4.1984 he found the Jeep missing from the parking place and the report of the theft was lodged at Chamba police station. He further stated that driver Govind Singh was not on duty on those dates. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the case :- 1. Whether the accident with Jeep No. URU 4279 was caused by Junior Engineer Sri U.S. Tyapaliyal of O.P. No. 2? If so, was the Junior Engineer of O.P. No. 2 driving the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner? 2. Whether as a result of the aforesaid accident, if proved, Anil Sahani died? 3. To what amount of compensation and from whom is the applicant entitled? If so, was the Junior Engineer of O.P. No. 2 driving the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner? 2. Whether as a result of the aforesaid accident, if proved, Anil Sahani died? 3. To what amount of compensation and from whom is the applicant entitled? 4. Whether the Junior Engineer U.S. Thapaliyal had no opportunity to take away the vehicle in question? If so, its effect? 5. Whether Jeep in question was missing as alleged in para 14 of Written Statement of 18/Kha? 5. The learned Tribunal recorded the evidence led by the parties, heard them and after perusing the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal took Issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 together for decision. The learned Tribunal after having dealt with the entire evidence on record ultimately came to the conclusion that “it was Sri Thapaliyal who was driving the Jeep at the time of accident, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Thapaliyal and that in the accident Anil Sahani died. It is also proved that Sri Thapaliyal was driving the Jeep with the permission of authorities and that the Jeep was not missing as contended by O.P. No. 2”. On Issue No. 3 the learned Tribunal lastly took Issue No. 3 for decision. The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 400/- per month and his contribution to the petitioner was assessed to be Rs. 150/- per month. The deceased was unmarried therefore, the age of the petitioner was taken into account and it was assessed that the deceased would have assisted his father for ten years. Thus, the loss of dependency was worked out 150 x 12 x 10 = Rs. 18,000/- and 10% was deducted towards lumpsum payment thus the loss of dependency was worked out at Rs. 16,200/-. The learned Tribunal further awarded amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards medical expenses and amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental shock for the death of son. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 22,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant. The learned Tribunal ultimately fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant O.P. No. 2 alone, as mentioned in the impugned award. 6. 3,000/- towards mental shock for the death of son. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 22,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant. The learned Tribunal ultimately fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant O.P. No. 2 alone, as mentioned in the impugned award. 6. In this appeal, the impugned award has been assailed mainly on the ground that the claim petition was barred by limitation and that the findings of the learned Tribunal are not based on evidence on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the lower court record. 8. It may be mentioned at the outset that the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim petition was barred by time has no force. The learned Tribunal had condoned the delay vide order dated 5.11.1984. It is not open for the appellant to raise this plea at the appellate stage. If the appellant felt aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.1984, it was for the appellant to challenge the said order, but it was not done. 9. The appellant in its written statement has admitted that date, time and place of the accident. It is the positive case of the claimant that Jeep No. URU 4279 was being driven rashly and negligently by the Junior Engineer U.S. Thapaliyal of the appellant-department and deceased Anil Sahani was traveling with him with the result the Jeep met with an accident and deceased Anil Sahani sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died on 9.4.1984. It is pertinent to note that the contesting O.P. No. 2-appellant has taken the plea that the said Jeep was missing from its parking place. According to the appellant, a report to that effect was lodged with the police station Chamba Tehri Garhwal on 6.4.1984. The carbon copy of the said report is paper no. 31-C (Ext.A-2). In this report, it has been mentioned that driver Govind Singh informed the Additional Project Manager, Sri Kripal Singh, that the Jeep in question was missing. It is very surprising that the written statement was filed on 6-5-1985 by the appellant before the learned Tribunal and till that date, the appellant had taken the stand that it was driver Govind Singh who informed the appellant-authority that the Jeep in question was missing from the spot. It is very surprising that the written statement was filed on 6-5-1985 by the appellant before the learned Tribunal and till that date, the appellant had taken the stand that it was driver Govind Singh who informed the appellant-authority that the Jeep in question was missing from the spot. The appellant could only realize its mistake as late as 23-12-1985 that in fact Govind Singh was not the driver concerned at the relevant time, but it was Ram Autar, driver, therefore, the appellant got driver Ram Autar examined under Order X, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Tribunal. This circumstances weakens the stand of the appellant taken in paragraph no. 10 of the written statement. It has been further stated in this paragraph that the driver Govind Singh came to know from the truck driver of Truck No. UTS-392 that a Jeep had fallen down the road in the Khadd near village Budogi. Not only this, when the ambiguity in the pleadings was removed by examining Ram Autar before the Tribunal under Order X, Rule 2 CPC, by stating that driver Govind Singh was not on duty on 5th and 6th April, 1984, even then D.W.1 B.P.Uniyal, Sub Engineer of the appellant went on saying that in the evening of 5.4.1984 driver Govind Singh returned to his duty and he collected the key of the Jeep from Ram Autar. In his statement this witness DW-1 has nowhere disclosed the truck number, which has been given in paragraph no. 10 of its written statement. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to note that the opposite party-appellant has not produced driver Govind Singh before the Tribunal, who could be the best person to substantiate the contention of the appellant that he had returned to duty in the evening of 5.4.1984. 10. The opposite party appellant has not proved its contention that the Jeep in question had been removed from the parking place by any some body without authority. On the other hand, form the side of the claimant, P.W.2 Ram Avadh Singh has been examined, who has stated that on 6.4.1984, he was Chaukidar in P.W.D. Chamba District Tehri. At the relevant time, the Jeep in question was being driven by Tahapaliyal and the Jeep was being driven rashly and negligently and in his very presence the Jeep rolled down in the Khadd. At the relevant time, the Jeep in question was being driven by Tahapaliyal and the Jeep was being driven rashly and negligently and in his very presence the Jeep rolled down in the Khadd. He further stated that in the accident Anil Sahani and Thapaliyal suffered grievous injuries and both of them were taken to Doon Hospital by them. P.W.2 has given ocular account of the entire accident. When cross-examined, he has frankly admitted that in the year 1985, he was removed from service in the year 1985 due to annoyance of the Officers. This witness has clearly stated that at the relevant time, he was accompanying his boss J.E. Rajendra Sharma in another vehicle and the ill-fated Jeep was about 100 Mt. ahead from that vehicle. He has been cross-examined at length but nothing material could be elicited from his cross-examination to show that he was not giving correct details of the accident. 11. It is also pertinent to mention that D.W.2 has stated that the vehicles of Nirman Nigam are under his supervision. He stated that it was Govind Singh who was permanent driver but he had gone on leave since 10-12 days before the accident and in his absence the Jeep in question was being driven by driver Ram Autar. As mentioned above, the testimony of D.W.1 and D.W.2 is inconsistent because the clarification as stated by D.W.2 Ram Autar in his statement under Order X, Rule 2 CPC does not find any corroboration from the version stated to by him as D.W.2. The learned Tribunal has thrashed out the truth after considering the evidence on record the learned Tribunal has held that the motor accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep No. URU 4279 by J.E. U.S.Thapaliyal with the result deceased Anil Sahani suffered fatal injuries and died. The appellant miserably failed to make out a case of theft of the Jeep as has been contended by it in its written statement. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1,2,4 and 5. the findings of the learned Tribunal is upheld accordingly. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. The contention is baseless. In the claim petition the monthly income of the deceased Anil Sahani is mentioned at Rs. 500/-. 1,2,4 and 5. the findings of the learned Tribunal is upheld accordingly. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. The contention is baseless. In the claim petition the monthly income of the deceased Anil Sahani is mentioned at Rs. 500/-. Deceased was admittedly aged 28 years at the time of his death. The age of the claimant-respondent is mentioned 64 years at the time of filing the claim petition. The claimant Harbans Lal Sahani has appeared as P.W.1 before the Tribunal and in his testimony he stated the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2500-3,000/- out of which he used to contribute Rs. 500-700. The learned Tribunal has not accepted this statement for the simple reason because the monthly income of the deceased has been shown to be Rs. 500/-. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income at Rs. 400/- per month. To determine loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal had taken into consideration the figure of Rs. 150/- as contribution of the deceased to his father for a period of ten years. This view of the learned Tribunal is fully based on proper appraisal of evidence on record and the Tribunal is fully based on proper appraisal of evidence on record and the Tribunal after considering all aspect of the case has assessed the loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for a period of ten years, thereby the loss of dependency has been reckoned as 150/- x 12 x 10 = 18,000/-. 10% from this amount has been deducted towards lump-sum payment, thereby the amount comes to Rs. 18,000 (-) 1,800/- = Rs. 16,200/-. The claimant has claimed Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance. Admittedly the injured Anil Sahani was taken to Doon Hospital Dehradun on 6-4-1984 and he died on 9-4-1984 in the hospital, therefore, for 3-4 days the deceased struggled between life and death and the claimant must have incurred conveyance charges as well as medical expenses etc. The learned Tribunal assessed expenditure on this count at Rs. 3,000/- and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded towards mental shock and agony. Thus total amount of Rs. 22,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation. This amount of Rs. 22,200/- is a moderate and just amount of compensation. The learned Tribunal assessed expenditure on this count at Rs. 3,000/- and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded towards mental shock and agony. Thus total amount of Rs. 22,200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation. This amount of Rs. 22,200/- is a moderate and just amount of compensation. Having considered the entire material on record, I am of the view that the amount of Rs. 22,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal cannot be taken to be on higher side. Therefore, I do not find any force in the appeal preferred by the owner of the Jeep. 13. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award under appeal is upheld. No order as to costs. 15. Amount if any in deposit with this Court shall be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tehri Garhwal for being paid to the claimant-respondent.