Hon'ble DOSHIT, J.—This Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 arises from the common judgment and order dated 29th September 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in so far as Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1170 of 2004 is allowed and the compensation in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is awarded. 2. The accident occurred on 10th November 2004 in Maharashtra on Puna-Bangalore Highway. In the said accident, one Jagdishsing Rana, a truck driver aged 53 years, resident of Ahmedabad city, lost his life. His wife and children filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1170 of 2004 and claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was a truck driver. On the fateful day, he was driving truck No.GJ-7- X-4126 from Bangalore to Ahmedabad. Somewhere near Karad village in Satara district, the truck had head on collision with Luxury bus No.KA-25- A-9161. In the said accident, the driver lost his life. The deceased was also the owner of the truck. He was around 53 years of age. He was earning around Rs.12,000/- per month. The offending Luxury bus was solely responsible for the accident. For calculating the monetary loss to the claimants, the Tribunal believed the monthly income of Rs.12,000/- of the deceased and has adopted the multiplier of 10. After deducting one-third amount for his personal expenses and the amount of loss of expectation of life and other amounts, the award in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been passed. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has preferred this Appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar appears for the appellant. He has assailed the judgment. Mr. Thakkar has submitted that the challenge is to the dependency loss computed by the Tribunal below. He has relied upon the Panchnama (Exh.52) and the evidence of eye-witness - Riteshkumar (Exh.61). He has strenuously urged that considering the position of the vehicles involved and the damage suffered by each vehicle, it cannot be said that the offending bus was solely responsible for the accident. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have attributed some negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the insured truck. The negligence on the part of the deceased has not been considered. The compensation paid to the claimant ought to have been reduced to that extent. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have attributed some negligence on the part of the deceased who was driving the insured truck. The negligence on the part of the deceased has not been considered. The compensation paid to the claimant ought to have been reduced to that extent. He has next contended that the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.12,000/- has been believed on a mere oral evidence. In absence of any documentary evidence, the monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.7,000/- and the dependency loss ought to have been computed on that basis. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bharti Kanaiyalal Chauhan and others (2008 ACJ 1880). 4. We are unable to agree with Mr. Thakkar. We have perused the Panchnama (Exh.52) and the evidence of eye-witness (Exh.61). Considering the extent of damage suffered by each vehicle and their relative position, we do not believe that the offending Luxury bus was not solely responsible for the accident. Even if there were some negligence on the part of the deceased, such negligence was too insignificant to be taken into consideration. As to the income even in absence of any evidence, it must be noted that the deceased was an inter-state transporter. He owned the truck. There is no reason to disbelieve that the deceased was earning around Rs.12,000/- per month. No other contention is raised before us. 5. The Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of.