JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the nonclaimant No.2-appellant (owner of the Bus No. RJI 4845) against the judgment and award dated 14.7.1994 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu in MACT Claim Case No.179/92 (137/93), whereby, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,22,000/- in favour of the claimants and against non-claimant No.1- 2. respondent No.7-Mohan Dass (Driver of the Bus) and no-claimant No. 2-appellant (owner of the Bus). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 16.5.1992 at about 7.00 PM, deceased Bhura Ram had gone from village Bigga to Pandusar and from that he was going to attend a marriage function in Jeep No. RJI 1606 along with Udaram and other persons. When they reached at a distance of about $$1= Km. from Hariyasar-Aaspalsar road, a Bus bearing No. RJI 4845 was coming from opposite side of the jeep, which was being driven by Mohan Dass Swamy rashly and negligently at a high speed dashed the jeep and thereby caused accident. In accident, deceased Bhura Ram who was sitting in the jeep, sustained serious injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 30 years and he was only a bread-earner member in his family. The claimants were dependent upon his income. He used to drive camel-cart and earn Rs.3000/- per month. Out of which, he used to spend Rs.200-300/- per month on himself and rest of the income, he used to pay to the family for meeting the family expenses. Thus, after untimely death of Bhura Ram in accident, the family had been deprived from the said income and love and affection. The claimant-respondent No.1 is the wife and claimant-respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5 are minor daughters and 3. son of the deceased. It is stated that they have been deprived from proper guardianship. The claimant-respondent No.6, is the old father of the deceased, has been deprived from services of his son. In this way, claimants filed claim petition for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.16,10,000/-. 3. After service of notice, non-claimants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement stating therein that the accident was not occurred due to their negligence but it happened due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. 4. Non-claimants No.4 and 5 filed a joint reply to the claim petition. 3. After service of notice, non-claimants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement stating therein that the accident was not occurred due to their negligence but it happened due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. 4. Non-claimants No.4 and 5 filed a joint reply to the claim petition. In reply, all the averments made by the claimants were denied. It was further submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get compensation from the answering-non-claimants No.4 and 5 . 5. Non-claimant No.3-respondent No.8 has stated by filing the application that accident is said to be occurred on 16.5.92 but the both the vehicles were insured on 18.5.92 and vide Cover Notes Risk were covered from that date, therefore, Insurance Company has wrongly made party. The Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues ;- " 1- D;k fnukad 16-5-1992 dks djhc lkr cts gfj;klj vklikylj esa gfj;klj ls Ms<+ nks fdyksehVj vkxs cl vkj0ts0vkbZ0 4845 ds pkyd vizkFkhZ ,d us cl dks rsth] ykijokgh o xyQr ls pykdj thi vkj0ts0vkbZ0 1606 ds VDdj ekjh ftlls mlesa cSBs Hkwjkjke ds xaHkhj pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ ftlls mldh e`R;q gks xbZ\ 2- D;k izkFkhZx.k e`rd ds mRrjkf/kdkjh o vkfJr izkFkhZx.k gksus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZx.k ls ;kfpdk dh in la0 12 esa mYysf[krkuqlkj dqy 16]10]000@& izfrdj Lo:i ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA 3- D;k nq?kZVuk thi vkj0ts0vkbZ0 1606 ds pkyd dh ykijokgh xQyr o rsth ls pykus ds dkj.k gqbZ Fkh blfy, vizkFkhZx.k ,d o nks izfrdj ds fy;s mRrjnk;h ugha xbZ gSa\ 4- D;k e`rd Hkwjkjke dqN Hkh dke /kU/kk ugh djrk FkkA eqvkotk jkf'k vR;f/kd crkbZ xbZ gSA 5- vuqrks"kA " 7. On behalf of the claimants, AW 1 Chokha Ram (father of the deceased), AW 2 Smt. Kamla (wife of the deceased), and AW 3 Uda Ram were produced, their statements were recorded and certain documents were exhibited. In defence, statements of NAW 1 Chhatu Singh, NAW 2 Heeralal, NAW 3 Kawra Ram, NAW 4 Ved Prakash, NAW 5 Mohan Dass, 5. and NAW 6 Dana Ram were recorded. 8. In defence, statements of NAW 1 Chhatu Singh, NAW 2 Heeralal, NAW 3 Kawra Ram, NAW 4 Ved Prakash, NAW 5 Mohan Dass, 5. and NAW 6 Dana Ram were recorded. 8. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Mohan Lal, in which, the deceased Bhura Ram had lost his life. Further, the learned Tribunal has discarded the contentions of contributory negligence of the driver of the jeep. Thus, exonerated the driver and owner of the jeep. Likewise, the learned Tribunal also held that bus was not insured on the day of accident. The learned Tribunal while considering the Cover-Note placed by the Insurance Company, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability and held non-claimants No.1 and 2 jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal has passed the Award to the tune of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim i.e. 13.11.1992, against the non-claimants No.1 and non-claimant No.2-appellant Ved Prakash (owner of the Bus). 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal, non-claimant No.2-appellant Ved Prakash preferred the present appeal before this Court. Notice of the appeal was issued and record was called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the judgment and award impugned and the record of the case. 11. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record, therefore, the findings on the relevant issues are not sustainable. It was contended that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in holding that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus whereas from the material available on record, it is well established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep on the wrong side. It was contended that this fact was proved by the document prepared by the police during investigation with reference to said accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have at least held contributory negligence on the part of the jeep also. Thus, the finding on issue No.1 is per verse and liable to be set aside. It was contended that this fact was proved by the document prepared by the police during investigation with reference to said accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have at least held contributory negligence on the part of the jeep also. Thus, the finding on issue No.1 is per verse and liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Khushaliben Ashumal Variani and others v. Manilal Prabhudas Chauhan andothers, 1988 ACJ 133 and Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, AIR 2006 SC 1256 . The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on higher side to the claimants on imaginary ground, that may be set aside. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was urged that the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 12. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and supported the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. It was further contended that negligence , on the part of jeep driver, was not established at all. It is well established from the material that due to bad weather, some dust came on the road but the jeep driver with full care and caution, drew the vehicle, however, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The respondents, in this respect, drew my attention towards the statements of the witnesses. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded, that is not on higher side and that should be maintained. On these submissions, it was urged that the appeal may be dismissed. 13. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the findings on each issues. The question arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus is perverse and against the record? Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and it requires reconsideration? The question arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus is perverse and against the record? Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side and it requires reconsideration? Before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, I have perused the statements of the witnesses and material placed in support thereof. From claimant's side, important witness AW 3 Uda Ram has been produced, who is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He has stated in his statement that driver of the bus dashed the jeep, in which, Bhura Ram sustained injuries resulting into death. He has further stated that at that time, the jeep was away from the main road but offending bus came rashly and dashed the jeep. The other witness also supported the same. In rebuttal, the appellant has produced witnesses. I have gone through their statements but they do not inspire confidence. The police, after investigation, has filed challan against the driver of the bus. The finding of the learned Tribunal is not suffering from any infirmity. There is no material, on which, it can be inferred that driver of the jeep was also involved in causing accident. Thus the contentions are not 9. tenable. I have perused the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant but the factual scenario in those authorities were different. In case of Khushaliben Ashumal Variani's (supra), head-on collision took place just middle of the road, theefore, both the vehicles were held responsible for causing accident. In case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra), it was established that both the vehicles were driving rashly and collided but that has not been the position in the present case. Thus, these authorities are not helping the contentions of the appellants. 14. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. I have perused the determination of compensation. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the full facts came to the conclusion that if the deceased Bhura Ram would have remained alive, he would have at least contributed Rs.500/- per month to his family member and on that basis, considering his age of 30 years, appropriate multiplier has been adopted. I have perused the determination of compensation. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the full facts came to the conclusion that if the deceased Bhura Ram would have remained alive, he would have at least contributed Rs.500/- per month to his family member and on that basis, considering his age of 30 years, appropriate multiplier has been adopted. Thus, the learned Tribunal has determined Rs.84,000/-as compensation in this respect. Further the learned Tribunal has awarded after considering the number of dependents i.e. seven, who are son 10. and daughters of lesser age. An amount of Rs.35,000/- has been awarded under the head love and affection to the claimants and an amount of Rs.1000/- has further awarded as general damages. In my opinion, considering the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the different heads is not excessive. Thus, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant's side, are not tenable. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal in the above-mentioned case is confirmed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******