JUDGMENT 1. - These two Civil Misc. Appeals, namely, 2561/2007 and 2569/2007 preferred by the owner of the vehicle, have arisen out of a single accident, for which, claim cases No.1147/2001 filed by the legal heirs of deceased Ranglal and 202/2002 filed by the injured Banshilal before the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur who vide his judgment and Award dated 8.2.2005 allowed the claim petition No. 1147/2001 and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,80,270/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of registration of the claim petition i.e. 20.12.2001 and also allowed the claim petition No.202/2002 and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of registration of the claim petition i.e. 4.3.2002 in favour of the claimants and against the sole non-claimant-appellant. 2. In the instant both the appeals, the common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the above referred appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the incident took place at about 8.30 PM on 17.9.2001, when Ranglal (deceased) along with Banshilal was going on his "Hero Motor Cycle" bearing its Registration No. RJ 27-M/7042 from his house to Amarpur Chouraha, then, one Jeep bearing its Registration No. RJ 27-C/1261 which was said to be driven by Manohar Singh who was also owner of the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motor cycle, as a result of which, Ranglal and Banshi Lal both sustained grievous injuries and they were brought to hospital for treatment but on the way to the hospital, Ranglal died due to injuries sustained in the said accident. It was alleged that the deceased Ranglal was earning Rs.15000/- per month by selling milk and poultry products and by selling of blankets and umbrellas and the injured Banshilal was earning Rs. 3000/- per month by selling blankets and umbrellas. It was further alleged that the deceased Ranglal was 48 years old and injured Banshilal was 21 years old at the time of accident. It was stated in the claim petition filed by legal heirs of Ranglal that the claimants were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased Ranglal and due to his accidental death, the claimants suffered huge loss of income as well as loss of love and affection. It was stated in the claim petition filed by legal heirs of Ranglal that the claimants were fully dependent upon the income of the deceased Ranglal and due to his accidental death, the claimants suffered huge loss of income as well as loss of love and affection. The claimants Smt. Narayani Bai (widow of Ranglal) and injured Banshilal filed their respective claim petitions referred above for awarding adequate and reasonable compensation as claimed on various heads. The injured Banshilal also claimed loss of income and compensation for sustaining injuries in accident. 4. Non-claimant-appellant Manohar Singh driver-cum-owner of the said Jeep has filed replies in both the claim petitions. In the reply, it was stated that the accident did not occur due to his rash and negligent driving of the said jeep. The rest of the averments made in the claim petition were denied. It was also submitted that the amounts of compensation claimed by the claimants are exorbitant. It was prayed that the claim petitions may be rejected. It is relevant to state that the said jeep was not insured at the time of the accident as nothing has been narrated by the owner in this respect in his replies. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues in the claim cases. Issue No.1 was framed with regard to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and causing accident in which Ranglal lost his life and Banshilal sustained injuries. Issue No.2 was framed with regard to compensation. The burden of proving these issues was on the claimants and Issue No.3 was framed with regard to the objections raised by the appellant in the replies. The burden of proving this issue was on the non-claimant-appellant. Issue No.4 was framed with regard to the reliefs. As both the claim petition were related to one accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal tried both the claim petitions jointly and decided the same by common judgment. 6. From the claimants' side, AW 1 Banshi Lal s/o Ranglal deceased, and AW 2 Banshi Lal s/o Kanuji injured claimant were examined. Their statements were recorded. Certain relevant documents Ex.1 to 16 were produced and got exhibited. In defence, NAW-1 Manohar Singh was examined. No documentary evidence was produced. 7. 6. From the claimants' side, AW 1 Banshi Lal s/o Ranglal deceased, and AW 2 Banshi Lal s/o Kanuji injured claimant were examined. Their statements were recorded. Certain relevant documents Ex.1 to 16 were produced and got exhibited. In defence, NAW-1 Manohar Singh was examined. No documentary evidence was produced. 7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur reached to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the appellant Manohar Singh, resulting into death of Rang Lal and causing injuries to Banshilal. The learned Tribunal also turned down the other defence pleas of the non-appellant and thus decided issues No.1 and 3 against the appellant. The learned Tribunal, after considering the age and income of the deceased and the injured, awarded compensation in favour of claimants and against non-claimant owner of the Jeep Rs.2,80,270/- in Claim Case No.1147/2001 and Rs15,000/- in Claim case No.202/2002 plus interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of claim petitions as stated above vide judgment and Award dated 8.2.2005. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Award, the owner of the vehicle filed these appeals while challenging the findings on issues No.1 and 3 and judgment given thereon and also agitating the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Notices of the appeals were issued. Record of the cases called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the cases. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the facts and provision of law and passed an erroneous judgment, that deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred by rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the appellant is totally perversed and one sided. It was submitted that in fact, the appellant's jeep met with an accident on 14.9.2001 and the said jeep had fallen into ditch and the appellant himself got injured in that accident. Due to that, he could not get it out the jeep from the pit and that was remained lying there upto 18.9.2001. It was submitted that in fact, the appellant's jeep met with an accident on 14.9.2001 and the said jeep had fallen into ditch and the appellant himself got injured in that accident. Due to that, he could not get it out the jeep from the pit and that was remained lying there upto 18.9.2001. It was urged that the appellant has stated on oath these facts before the learned Tribunal that should not have been discarded but the learned Tribunal has not relied on his statement and gave much emphasis on the statement of AW 2 Banshilal, so-called injured claimant but his statement is not of worth credibility. AW 2 Banshilal has not even mentioned the name of the driver of the jeep, despite the fact that he was knowing the appellant prior to that it was contended that a false criminal case has been lodged against him to gain unfair advantage by the claimants. Thus, it was prayed that the finding on issues No.1 and 3 may be set aside and quashed. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants though the income by the claimants has not been proved. On the basis of these submissions, a prayer was made to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award. 11. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents refuted the contentions placed by the appellant's side and submitted that the defence pleas placed by the appellant are not at all proved that his jeep was involved in another accident on 14.9.2001. It was submitted that this material defence was not taken in the reply filed by the appellant, for the first time, it was raised at the time of his statement. No documentary evidence was produced in support thereof. Though it was stated in his statement that he suffered injuries in accident and got them checked by the doctor and the doctor prepared the prescription slip but even that has not been produced. Thus, his defence plea is after-thought and not sustainable. It was also submitted that a report of the said accident was lodged at the police station and the police authority after a through investigation has filed challan against the appellant for rash and negligent driving and causing death in accident. Thus, his defence plea is after-thought and not sustainable. It was also submitted that a report of the said accident was lodged at the police station and the police authority after a through investigation has filed challan against the appellant for rash and negligent driving and causing death in accident. It was also submitted that during investigation, the police asked the appellant about the accident by giving notice (Ex.7) under Section 133 M.V.Act and the appellant replied the same by stating that on 17.9.2001 at the time of accident, he was driving the jeep in the bus and accident occurred. During statement before the learned Tribunal, he has admitted his signatures A to B on Ex.7. Thus the finding of the learned Tribunal is correct, AW 2 Banshilal himself was injured in the accident has specifically stated the involvement of the said jeep. The learned counsel for the respondent also refuted the contentions raised with regard to quantum of compensation further submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on the lower side to the claimants though they have not filed appeal but looking to the age and income of the deceased and injured that is required to be enhanced for that prayer was made to revise the same by invoking inherent power of the appellate court in the interest of justice. On the basis of these submissions, it was prayed that both the appeals may be dismissed and compensation may be enhanced. 12. I have considered the rival submissions placed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings on issues and conclusion drawn thereon. The points for consideration raised in these appeals are with regard to involvement of appellant's jeep in the accident and quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 13. The first contention of the appellant that his jeep was not involved in the accident occurred on 17.9.2001 as his jeep was involved in another accident occurred on 14.9.2001 and the jeep had fallen in the pit is concerned is not believable. This material plea was not taken in the reply but placed for the first time in his statement before the learned Tribunal. It is also pertinent to note that no suggestion was put to AW 2 Banshilal in this respect at the time of his statement, therefore, this plea is found to be after-thought. This material plea was not taken in the reply but placed for the first time in his statement before the learned Tribunal. It is also pertinent to note that no suggestion was put to AW 2 Banshilal in this respect at the time of his statement, therefore, this plea is found to be after-thought. The police has filed challan against the appellant after investigation stating that on 17.9.2001, no accident was caused by jeep driven by the appellant. During investigation, a notice (Ex.7) was given to the appellant being owner of the vehicle that who was driving the said jeep at that time of accident occurred on 17.9.2001 and in reply written on the same notice (Ex.7) to the notice, the appellant admitted that he himself was driving the jeep at the time of accident, the relevant portion of his reply is reproduced as under:- " egksn;] fuosnu gS fd thi ua0 vkj0ts0 27&lh&1261 dk ekfyd eSa Lo;a gwa ,oe~ fnukad 17-09-2001 dks oDr n`?kZVuk mDr okgu dks eSa gh pyk jgk FkkA rk% 18-09-2001 " 14. In his court statement, he has admitted his signatures A to B on the notice (Ex.7) but he has tried to disown it stating that he has not written the facts in reply C to D but thereafter no protest has been made by him, therefore, his statement to this extent creates no confidence. He has also not produced the medical check up slip as stated by him that on 14.9.2001 he got injuries and doctor checked him that checking report might have supported his version but there has not been produced that also goes against him. AW 2 Banshilal has proved the facts in question. Thus the finding of learned Tribunal in respect of issues No.1 and 3 are correct and not suffering from any infirmity or defect that is to be maintained. The contentions raised in this respect by the appellant are found baseless and they are rejected hereby. 15. I have also considered the other contentions raised with regard to quantum of compensation. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs.2100/- per month in comparison to the statement of his wife and AW 2 Banshilal that the deceased Ranglal was earning Rs.15000/- per month. The learned Tribunal while considering the age, reasonably has determined the compensation in death case of a person of 48 years Rs. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs.2100/- per month in comparison to the statement of his wife and AW 2 Banshilal that the deceased Ranglal was earning Rs.15000/- per month. The learned Tribunal while considering the age, reasonably has determined the compensation in death case of a person of 48 years Rs. 2,80,270/- that is not excessive. A prayer has been made to enhance but considering the material available on record where no supporting documents have been filed for assessing the income. The prayer is hereby rejected. Rs.15000/- has been awarded to the injured claimant Bashilal aged 21 years. I have seen the material in that respect. He has sustained 10 injuries on his person. Injury Report is Ex. 13 and other material were on record, that is, also does not seem to be excessive and are maintained. 16. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the contentions raised by the appellant are not sustainable and appeals deserve to be dismissed. They are hereby disallowed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in reference to both the cases is confirmed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******