P. C. VERMA AND B. C. KANDPAL, JJ. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are being decided by the common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we are narrating the facts of appeal No. 313 of 2004. Both these appeals are preferred against the judgmentand order dated 26th May, 2004 passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal/additional district Judge, Nainital in M. A. C. C. No. 123 of 2002 between Smt. Rani Bhargawa v. Sri harishankar Yadav and others, whereby the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- as compensation and out of which Rs. 1,62,500/-against the National India Insurance company Ltd. alongwith interest @ 7% p. a. from the date of filing the petition. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 25th april, 1997, the deceased-Ramesh J. Bhargawa alongwith other passengers going to Lucknow in Tata Estate bearing registration No. UP-78-K/5846. When the said vehicle reached near Chandara village, district Sitapur at about 11. 30 due to blast in the tyre the vehicle in question hit toward the truck standing on the corner of the road. Due to this accident, Sri Ramesh J. Bhargawa sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of his treatment. According to the claimant, at the time of the accident, Sri ramesh J. Bhargawa was earning Rs. 20,000/-p. m. Therefore, she has filed claim petition for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. ( 3 ) NATIONAL Insurance Company/ appellant filed its written statement denying the allegation made in the claim petition. New India Insurance Company also filed its written statement stating therein that the vehicle in question was not having the valid certificates. Owner of the truck-Sri harishankar Yadav also alleged that his truck was not involved in the said accident. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues: 1. Whether on 25th April, 1997 at 11. 30 a. m. Tata Estate bearing registration No. UP-78-K/5846 due to rash and negligent driving of its driver on Sitapur Shahjahanpur nation Highway at Chandra Police station, District Sitapur met with an accident due to which Ramesh j. Bhargawa died? 2. Whether the death of Ramesh J. Bhargawa occurred due to rash driving of the driver? 3. Whether the petitioner/claimant entitled to receive compensation? 4. How much compensation the petitioner is/entitled? 2. Whether the death of Ramesh J. Bhargawa occurred due to rash driving of the driver? 3. Whether the petitioner/claimant entitled to receive compensation? 4. How much compensation the petitioner is/entitled? ( 5 ) BOTH the parties have adduced their evidence in support of their case. The tribunal after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the claimants as compensation alongwith interest @ 7% p. a. from the date of filing the petition vide judgment and award dated 26th May, 2004. ( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance company preferred an appeal before this court. The claimant also filed an appeal against the said judgment and award for enhancement. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 7 ) IN order to support her case, Smt. Rani bhargwa (P. W. 1) stated in her statement that on 24th April, 1997 her husband was on the way to Lucknow in Tata Estate No. 78-K/5846. When the said vehicle reached near chandara village, District Sitapur, the tyre of the car burst and the said vehicle collided with the standing truck bearing registration no. UP-65-H/2503 due to which Ramesh J. Bhargawa sustained injuries and died on 2nd may, 1997 during his treatment. According to her, he was earning Rs. 17,000/- to 18,000/-p. m. At the time of the accident, he was driving the said vehicle. The statement of debdutt (P. W. 2) corroborated the version of smt. Rani Bhargawa (P. W. 1) and stated that the said accident occurred due to burst of the tyre and due to collusion of the truck standing on the main road. ( 8 ) NO oral evidence has been adduced by the respondent/appellant before the tribunal. Therefore, it is clear from the statement made by the claimant that on 25th april, 1997 the said vehicle was going towards Lucknow and the accident occurred due to burst of the tyre and due to collusion of the truck standing on the main road. ( 9 ) THE appellant-National Insurance company preferred this appeal only on the ground that the Tribunal has alleged that truckno. ( 9 ) THE appellant-National Insurance company preferred this appeal only on the ground that the Tribunal has alleged that truckno. UP-65-H/2503 insured by the New india Assurance Company Ltd. which was standing on the main road without indicator and in violation of Section 122 and therefore, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to hold contributory negligence of the vehicle rather entire liability ought to have been fixed against the insurer of truck. In order to support his version, learned Counsel for the appellant placed before us various citations of Hon'ble Apex Court. ( 10 ) AFTER going through the entire judgments placed before us, we are of the view that the facts of the present case are entirely different from these judgments. The Tribunal after scrutinizing the entire evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the said truck was standing on the main road without indicator and violated the Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles act. If the truck was not standing at the place of accident, the car (Tata Estate) would not have collided with the said truck. Therefore, the liability of compensation is contributory and the Tribunal has rightly fastened the responsibility upon the insurer of both the vehicles in question. ( 11 ) AS far as the award of compensation is concerned, as per the evidence produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal calculated the annual income of the deceased Rs. 95,190/-and according to this monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 7,500/ -. If the deceased would have been spending 1/3rd amount of his total income towards his own expenditure then Rs. 5,000/- would be spent on her which comes to Rs. 60,000/- per year and the tribunal adopted multiplier of 5 which comes to Rs. 3,00,000/ -. In spite of this the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards rites for funeral, rs. 5,000/- for consortium, s. 10,000/- for mental and physical agony and Rs. 5,000/-towards medical expenses, which comes to rs. 3,25,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,62,500/-, as compensation against each Insurance Company. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, we are in total agreement with the findings recorded by the tribunal concerned. We find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned. 3,25,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,62,500/-, as compensation against each Insurance Company. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, we are in total agreement with the findings recorded by the tribunal concerned. We find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal has discussed each and every aspect of the matter and awarded compensation to the claimant which is just and proper. ( 13 ) WE do not find any merit in the case and is accordingly, dismissed. ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal No. 312 of 2004 filed by the claimant for enhancement of award is also stand dismissed. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeals are dismissed. ( 16 ) THE judgment and order dated 26th may, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal/additional District Judge, nainitalinm. A. C. C. No. 123 of 2002 between smt. Rani Bhargawa v. Sri Harishankar Yadav and others, is hereby confirmed. --- *** --- .