JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. GC Mazmudar for appellant insurance company. 2. By filing this appeal, appellant has challenged award made by Claims Tribunal, FTC-1 Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam in Claim Petition NO. 30 of 2008 dated 26th November, 2008 wherein claims tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,09,000.00 with 7.5 per cent interest in favour of respondents claimants. 3. Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate for appellant insurance company has raised contention before this court while assailing award, firstly, that the vehicle is not involved in said accident. Secondly, income assessed by claims tribunal is wrong and/or on higher side and without any cogent evidence accepting evidence of widow and thirdly that driver is a necessary party but driver was not joined as party and, therefore, owner is not vicariously liable for payment of compensation and net result is that insurance company is not duty bound to indemnify owner as per policy of insurance. Except these contentions, no other contention is raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar before this Court. 4. I have considered these three contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar for appellant. I have also perused impugned award made by claims tribunal. 5. On 13.7.2007, deceased Baldevbhai Devabhai Bharwad was standing nearby at sign board of village Gotarka and he was waiting for ST Bus along with some other people, at that time, at about 1.30 p.m. one truck bearing registration No. GJ.24.U.7171 came from Radhanpur side and it further came to wrong side and dashed with persons standing nearby sign board of village Gotarka and said Baldevbhai D. Bharwad sustained grievous injury and that other passengers were also injured to then, and said Baldevbhai D. Bharwad was brought to Radhanpur Government Hospital where he was primarily treated by doctors and was brought to Mahesana Government Hospital for further treatment but in mean time, he succumbed to injury therefore, minor daughter and two minor sons and father of deceased along with applicant No.1, widow of deceased filed aforesaid claim petition before claims tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.00 from opponents under section 166 of MV Act, 1988. 6. Before claims tribunal, opponent no.1 owner of vehicle has not remained present though served nor filed written statement. Opponent no.2 insurance company of said vehicle filed its written statement at Exh. 10,00,000.00 from opponents under section 166 of MV Act, 1988. 6. Before claims tribunal, opponent no.1 owner of vehicle has not remained present though served nor filed written statement. Opponent no.2 insurance company of said vehicle filed its written statement at Exh. 26 and totally denied claim on each and every count such as age, income, injury, resultant death thereto and negligence on part of driver of said truck is also denied very specifically. It was also submitted that amount of claim is rather excessive and exorbitent and thus on these ground, it was prayed to dismiss claim petition against it. 7. Before claims tribunal, issues are framed at Exh. 8 and, thereafter, widow was examined at Exh. 14 where she has reproduced very factum of incident as narrated in claim petition and in cross examination taken by advocate for insurance company, it was admitted by her that she was not present at the time of occurrence of incident. It was also admitted by her that she has not produced birth certificate of deceased but she has stated that date of birth of deceased is mentioned in driving licence of deceased which is produced on record. It was stated by her that her husband was driving auto rickshaw of his own ownership since about last four years and her husband was having badge for said auto rickshaw driving. It was denied that her husband was not earning Rs. 200.00 per day and/or her husband was earning only Rs. 50.00 to Rs. 60.00 per day. It was admitted by her that at present, said rickshaw is given to another person on rental base. Criminal case is lodged by one Gandaji Shamlaji Thakor which was produced at Exh. 16 before claims tribunal and according to statement made by him, it was disclosed therein that he along with some other persons were standing at the place of incident nearby 3 cross roads and at that time, one truck came with full speed from Radhanpur side and that driver of said truck vehicle lost his control over steering, hence, he dashed truck with ankle of complainant and other passengers and his uncle Kanaji Hiraji Thakor and one person of Bharwad caste sustained injury. After incident, truck driver has absconded from place of incident, then after upon a call given for Ambulance-108 said injured were brought to Radhanpur Government Hospital in said Ambulance 108 and uncle of complainant died on the spot. Truck number is mentioned therein which has tallied with contents of claim petition. Said complaint was registered before Radhanpur Police Station vide CR No.119 of 2009 under section 279, 304A,337 and 338 of IPC read with section 177, 184 and 134 of MV Act. Panchanama of spot of incident is produced at Exh. 17, place of incident is shown by said complainant. It is tallied with place shown in FIR. At the place of incident, blood stains were observed with an encompassment of about 3 meters circle, driving licence of deceased Baldevbhai Devabhai is produced at Exh. 19 which is for auto rickshaw but period mentioned is seen ended over prior to said incident i.e. On 30.11.2006, driving licence of said truck driver is produced at Exh. 20 which is given for driving LMV/HGV/HPV vehicle and same is seen effective on the date of incident. Inquest panchanama of dead body of deceased is produced at Exh. 18. It appears therein that deceased was primarily treated at Raffle Hospital of Radhanpur and then he was brought to Mahesana Government Hospital for further treatment in the mean time he succumbed to injuries. Ligature with blood stains was observed on head and dry blood stains were observed over the face of dead body, blood was observed coming out from left ear and then abrasion of skin was observed below left eye and blood stains also observed over chest and abrasions were also observed over chest skin, blood stains also observed over neck, ligature with blood stains of were also observed over left knee, other injuries were also observed on the parts of dead body. Dead body was identified by one Mahendrabhai Devchand who happened to be friend of deceased. PM Report of deceased is produced at Exh. 23 which was performed at 5.30 p.m. on the date of incident in Govt. Hospital at Mehsana. According to opinion of doctor concerned, cause of death was shock due to head injury and an injury to vital organ. Affidavit of Drivier of truck namely Ramzanbhai Mohammadbhai Rayma who seems to be witness of Insurance Company was filed before claims tribunal at Exh. Hospital at Mehsana. According to opinion of doctor concerned, cause of death was shock due to head injury and an injury to vital organ. Affidavit of Drivier of truck namely Ramzanbhai Mohammadbhai Rayma who seems to be witness of Insurance Company was filed before claims tribunal at Exh. 31 wherein it was admitted by him that he was passing near by place of incident while driving said truck which is duly involved in said incident, however, he has denied an incident. In cross examination by learned advocate for claimant, he has admitted that he was arrested as an accused in present accident, and after investigation, concerned police station has filed charge sheet against him. It is denied by him that he was driving said truck with full speed and he dashed with persons standing thereon. Person who lodged FIR has no any relation with the deceased nor opponent no.1 is also known to deceased and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed by police against driver of truck and thus considering injury and informations recorded in FIR by oscular/eye witnesses, it was held by claims tribunal that driver of said truck owned by opponent no.1 was rash and negligent which caused an accident and deceased Baldevbhai Devabhai Bharwad had sustained fatal injuries in said accident and during his treatment, he succumbed to said injuries and considering all these aspects of matter, issue no.1 was answered by claims tribunal in affirmative accordingly. According to my opinion, such finding of claims tribunal on issue no.1 is based upon appreciation of evidence on record is just and proper and claims tribunal has rightly decided issue no.1. I have considered contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar for appellant that truck was not involved in said incident relying upon evidence of driver and contention about averments made in FIR, that driver was not joined as party opponent by claimants and therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify owner. Considering evidence of driver of truck examined at Exh. Mazmudar for appellant that truck was not involved in said incident relying upon evidence of driver and contention about averments made in FIR, that driver was not joined as party opponent by claimants and therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify owner. Considering evidence of driver of truck examined at Exh. 31 on behalf of insurance company, in his cross examination, it was admitted that he was arrested as an accused in present accident, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against him by police though it was denied by him that he was driving said truck with full speed and he dashed with persons standing thereon, and considering his examination in chief wherein it was stated by him that he was passing near by place of incident while driving said truck which is duly involved in said incident, however, he has denied an incident, it is clear that though he is admitting his presence, he is denying factum of incident as alleged by claimant and yet admits that charge sheet was filed against him by police. In FIR, read over before this court by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar, details have been given that persons were standing and how incident occurred except fact that truck number was not given by complainant but it was given by someone else in chit and that is how FIR is disputed by insurance company. Question is that police complaint was filed against driver of vehicle and it was investigated by police and thereafter, charge sheet was filed against driver which is not denied by said witness. These facts are sufficient to believe that truck in question driven by said witness is involved in accident. Driver is on one hand admits that he was passing near by place of incident while driving said truck which is duly involved in said incident and he is denying he was driving said truck with full speed and he dashed with persons standing thereon, it would mean that he is simply denying allegation of rash and negligent driving of truck but impliedly admitting involvement of truck in accident which is otherwise expressly proved in view of filing of charge sheet against him. In view of that, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar cannot be accepted considering evidence of driver at Exh. In view of that, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar cannot be accepted considering evidence of driver at Exh. 31 from where it has been established that on the day of incident, he was passing near by place of incident while driving said truck and he also made it clear while denying that he was driving said truck rashly with full speed. Filing of FIR against driver of truck suggests involvement of truck in said accident and, therefore, this is sufficient to establish involvement of vehicle and driver in said accident. It is also necessary to note one important aspect that owner of truck was party to proceedings and he was served with notice issued by claims tribunal and yet he has not remained present nor filed any written statement before claims tribunal. If vehicle was not involved in accident and driver was not rash and negligent in driving truck, then, why owner remained silent and not filed any written statement before claims tribunal and also not gave any evidence before claims tribunal in support of contentions raised by insurance company? Therefore, considering evidence of driver at Exh. 31 and also conduct of owner of truck, involvement of vehicle and its driver is established. Therefore, according to my opinion, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar cannot be accepted and same are therefore rejected. 8. As regards contention of learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar about quantum where it is contended by learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar that no documentary evidence is produced by claimant to show exact income of deceased and however, claims tribunal considered oral evidence of widow and, therefore, assessment of income is wrong or on higher side, considering evidence of widow, wherein it was stated by her that her husband was driving auto rickshaw of his own ownership since about last four years and her husband was having badge for said auto rickshaw driving, it was denied that her husband was not earning Rs. 200.00 per day and/or her husband was earning only Rs. 50.00 to Rs. 60.00 per day, and also considering licence of rickshaw in the name of deceased produced at Exh. 19, it is clear that deceased was having his own rickshaw, it is clear that deceased was earning livelihood of Rs. 200.00 per day and/or her husband was earning only Rs. 50.00 to Rs. 60.00 per day, and also considering licence of rickshaw in the name of deceased produced at Exh. 19, it is clear that deceased was having his own rickshaw, it is clear that deceased was earning livelihood of Rs. 200.00 for himself and family from rickshaw driving and it is also clear that considering driving licence for auto rickshaw and badge of rickshaw owned by deceased, deceased cannot be considered as none earning person. Being widow of deceased who was engaged in work of rickshaw driving for carrying passengers from one place to another, widow is unable to produce exact proof in the form of IT Return or something like that and, therefore, insurance company is raising contention that there is no cogent evidence as regards income. In our country, all persons those who are engaged in such work would be having no proof of income though they are earning good amount since they are not having proof like pay slip or receipt issued by passenger for travelling in rickshaw and not submitting IT Returns. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar cannot be accepted. I fail to understand such type of submission that in absence of cogent evidence, claims tribunal has committed error in assessing income when driver was driving auto rickshaw and he was owner of said auto rickshaw. For such persons like claimants in this case, it is always difficult to establish income though they are not non earning persons. Widow cannot examine each passenger who was travelling in rickshaw driven by her husband and how much amount was being paid by him to her husband and thus, widow cannot prove exact income of her husband per month. All that was available with widow was produced by widow before claims tribunal for proving that her husband was not a non earning person but he was driving his own rickshaw and he was also having badge for rickshaw driving and earning Rs. 200.00 per day. Considering date of incident 13.7.2007 and keeping in mind members in family maintained by deceased, 6 persons, income of Rs. 200.00 per day is challenged by insurance company. 200.00 per day. Considering date of incident 13.7.2007 and keeping in mind members in family maintained by deceased, 6 persons, income of Rs. 200.00 per day is challenged by insurance company. Therefore, considering family of six persons maintained by deceased by driving auto rickshaw in 2007, according to my opinion, such assessment of income made by claims tribunal cannot be considered to be excessive or on higher side in any manner. Such fact must have to be kept in mind by claims tribunal and accordingly claims tribunal has held that Rs. 4000.00 per month is required to be considered for calculation of compensation of deceased. Claims tribunal has also taken into consideration admission of widow of deceased that said rickshaw is given on rental basis and based on such admission, claims tribunal deducted Rs. 1000.00 from amount of Rs. 4000.00 and then held that an amount of Rs. 3000.00 per month is required to be considered for calculating compensation in this case therefore, assessment of income done by claims tribunal cannot be considered to be excessive or on higher side. It is clear that claims tribunal has not accepted say of claimant in to by holding that deceased was earning Rs. 200.00 per day and, therefore, was earning Rs. 6000.00 per month but considering absence of any documentary evidence with respect to account of income of deceased and also considering said aspects as well as future income, average income and deduction of ?rd amount towards personal expenditure of deceased, claims tribunal has held that Rs. 4000.00 per month is required to be considered for calculation of compensation of deceased. Claims tribunal has also taken into consideration admission of widow of deceased that said rickshaw is given on rental basis and based on such admission, claims tribunal deducted Rs. 1000.00 from amount of Rs. 4000.00 as stated earlier. ?rd deduction has been arriving from 2nd Schedule read with section 163A but it is not based on any straight jacket formula and if members in family left by deceased are more, then, personal expenditure is required to be considered less than even ?rd and in this case, family of deceased was of 6 persons maintained by him and, therefore, claims tribunal has not committed any error in assessing dependency of Rs. 3000.00 because claims tribunal has also deducted Rs. 3000.00 because claims tribunal has also deducted Rs. 1000.00 received by family from rent of rickshaw given on rental basis after death of deceased. NO evidence was produced by insurance company before claims tribunal to prove that personal expenditure could be more because deceased was having any particular habit or addiction or anything like that and, therefore, claims tribunal has rightly decided dependency of Rs. 3000.00 for family of 6 persons left by deceased. Therefore, contentions raised by learned Advocate MR. Mazmudar in that regard cannot be accepted and same are therefore rejected. 9. Looking to age of deceased 38 years at the time of incident determined by claims tribunal considering date of birth 1.6.1969 as per driving licence Exh. 19, multiplier of 16 applied by claims tribunal cannot be considered to be unreasonable or unjust. Claims tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 16 and has rightly held that future loss will be of Rs. 36000x 16 = Rs. 5,76,000.00 and has also not committed any error in awarding Rs. 3000.00 on head of medical expenses and transportation as well as Rs. 10,000.00 towards loss of estate as well as Rs. 15000.00 towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5000.00 for funeral expenses. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar has relied upon decision of apex court in case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and others v. Mohammed Jameel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 225 : AIR 2009 SC 1219 . Relying upon head note-C, submitted that onus of proving income of deceased lies on claimants and bare assertion in claim petition in that behalf is not sufficient to discharge that onus. I have considered said decision relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar in light of facts of present case and evidence on record considered by claims tribunal. Looking to facts of this case, it is clear that there are no bare assertions in claim petition in respect of income. Ownership of auto rickshaw is in name of deceased as per Exh. 24 and deceased was having driving licence of auto rickshaw and was having badge for rickshaw driving and based upon such evidence, widow deposed before claims tribunal that her husband was driving auto rickshaw of his own ownership and he was having driving licence as well as badge and was earning Rs. 200.00 per day and maintaining family of six persons from income of such rickshaw driving. 200.00 per day and maintaining family of six persons from income of such rickshaw driving. Therefore, based on such evidence, claims tribunal determined Rs. 4000.00 after considering personal expenditure as stated earlier and then also deducted Rs. 1000.00 towards rent of rickshaw given on rental basis after death of deceased and determined dependency at Rs. 3000.00. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are bare assertions in claim petition in view of evidence on record which makes it clear that deceased was not a non-earning person but was doing work of rickshaw driving having rickshaw of his ownership as well as badge and licence for rickshaw driving on basis of which, reasonable guess work could be done by claims tribunal. Therefore, onus on the part of the claimant has been discharged by claimants and then, such onus was shifted on insurance company to prove otherwise by producing evidence to the contrary and establish that deceased was not having this much income and/or he was a non earning person. Therefore, according to my opinion, since this has not been done by insurance company before claims tribunal, claims tribunal has not committed any error in deciding dependency of Rs. 3000.00 per month and multiplier of 16 considering age of deceased, 38 years at the time of accident. Therefore, said decision is not helpful to appellant. 11. Deceased was driver of auto rickshaw His driving licence was on record wherein his date of birth was mentioned. Auto rickshaw was in his name means he was owner of said auto rickshaw and evidence of widow suggests that deceased was driving auto rickshaw and was earning Rs. 200.00 per day means Rs. 6000.00 per month. What else evidence could be available with widow of rickshaw driver except her oral evidence with documentary evidence such as driving licence, badge for auto rickshaw driving from which it is being proved that he was rickshaw driver maintaining family of six persons. In auto rickshaw passengers were being carried out by driver after collecting fare from them for which rickshaw drivers are not issuing receipt while keeping counter foil thereof with him, in his custody. In auto rickshaw passengers were being carried out by driver after collecting fare from them for which rickshaw drivers are not issuing receipt while keeping counter foil thereof with him, in his custody. For such transaction, there cannot be documentary evidence available with widow and yet insurance company is raising such technical contention that there is no exact evidence though it is clear from award that claims tribunal has not accepted claim of claimant that deceased was earning Rs. 6000.00 per month but has considered dependency of Rs. 3000.00 while deducting personal expenditure of deceased and Rs. 1000.00 towards rent of rickshaw received by family. In light of such facts of this case, to raise such contention that no evidence was produced for income by widow of deceased is without any substance and same is also contrary to common sense. 12. The driver examined on behalf of insurance company also admitted that charge sheet was filed by police against him. Therefore, this is clear material for coming to conclusion that vehicle is involved in accident as per decision of this Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And another v. Dahyaben Jayantilal Panchal and others reported in 2000 ACJ 957 followed by subsequent decision of this court in first appeal no. 2162 of 2002 decided on 22nd August, 2006. Driver has not challenged filing of charge sheet against him and employer has not denied this fact and, therefore, this is enough material to consider that vehicle in question has been involved in accident. 13. As regards contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Mazmudar for appellant that claims tribunal has committed gross error in deciding claim petition in absence of driver, this court has examined this issue in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Jamnagar v. Cargo Motors Ltd. and others reported in 2009 (2) GLR page 974 arising from First Appeal No. 487 and 488 of 2009 decided on 6.2.2009considering apex court decision in case of Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 (5) Scale 269 : AIR 2007 SC 1607 : 2007 (3) GLR 2356 (SC). Following observations have been made by this Court in para 12: "12. Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 (5) Scale 269 : AIR 2007 SC 1607 : 2007 (3) GLR 2356 (SC). Following observations have been made by this Court in para 12: "12. In facts of this case, there is no such controversy between the parties about driver of truck owned by Cargo Motors Ltd. Owner was joined as party who is basically vicariously liable for the act committed by its agent namely driver of truck and owner has to be indemnified by insurance company in accordance with terms and conditions of policy of insurance. Owner himself has remained absent and had not appeared and has not filed written statement and in such circumstances, question is whether if driver is not joined as party, whether claim petition can be considered to be fatal, answer of this court is that the claim petition would not become fatal and this view has been taken by Kerala High Court in Simon Pathrose v. United India Insurance CO. Ltd. and another reported in 1994 ACJ 840 wherein Kerala High Court was considering question of non impleading of driver and maintainability of claim petition. Claimant had sustained injuries while boarding a bus. Claim petition was dismissed by claims tribunal as not maintainable for want of person against whom negligence is alleged namely driver and it was held by Kerala High Court that non impleading of driver is not fatal to the maintainability of claim petition. Relevant discussion made by Kerala High Court in para 7, 8 and 9 is reproduced as under: "7. In the instant appeal filed by the claimant, the main contention urged before me was whether the finding of the Tribunal that the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of the driver of the bus is correct or not. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the question is no longer res integra. In this connection, it has to be noted that both driver and owner are joint tortfeasors. In a motor accident the primary liability is that of the driver and once the driver is found negligent, the owner will be vicariously liable for the negligent, the owner will be vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver. In this connection, it has to be noted that both driver and owner are joint tortfeasors. In a motor accident the primary liability is that of the driver and once the driver is found negligent, the owner will be vicariously liable for the negligent, the owner will be vicariously liable for the negligent act of the driver. In other words, the liability of the driver and owner, being joint tortfeasors, is joint and several and any person who sustained any injury in a road traffic accident is entitled to sue either the driver of the vehicle or its owner. It may be true that the person against whom the award is passed and who is made liable to pay the amount as damages is entitled to recover the same from the other joint tortfeasor, but that will not disentitle the claimant injured from suing any one of the joint tortfeasonrs. It has been so held by two Division Bench decisions of this court reported in United India Fire & General Insurance Company Limited v. Varghese, 1989 ACJ 472 (Kerala) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ratnamma, 1988 ACJ 435 (Kerala). In the later case, it was observed as follows : "The owner and driver are joint tort-feasors and, therefore, absence of one of them will not be a bar for a suit for compensation. This does not mean that the negligence of the driver need not be proved. Even in the absence of the driver evidence regarding the negligence of the driver can be adduced. Take, for example, a case where the driver also died in the accident without leaving any legal representative. That will not preclude the injured from claiming compensation against the owner or the insurer. T he owner and driver are joint tortfeasors, whose liability is joint and several. Each may be sued alone or jointly and each will be liable for the whole damage." The principle has been followed in a recent Division Bench decision of this court in Anuradha Varma v. State of Kerala, 1994 ACJ 353 (Kerala), wherein it was held that the nonjoinder of the driver is not fatal to a claim petition. 8. Each may be sued alone or jointly and each will be liable for the whole damage." The principle has been followed in a recent Division Bench decision of this court in Anuradha Varma v. State of Kerala, 1994 ACJ 353 (Kerala), wherein it was held that the nonjoinder of the driver is not fatal to a claim petition. 8. In the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the driver is not a necessary party to the proceedings and absence of the driver will not be a bar for a petition claiming compensation. 9. Having considered the question whether the driver is a necessary party to the proceedings, the next aspect to be considered is the question of negligence, namely, whether the accident as alleged by the claimant was caused by the rash and negligent conduct on the part of the driver or the conductor, as the case may be. It so happens that in many cases the driver himself may die in the accident or he may die during the pendency of the proceedings or he may not appear at all even though he is arrayed as a party respondent before the Tribunal. In all such cases it does not mean that the negligence of the driver need not be proved. The negligence of the driver can be proved even in the absence of the driver on the party array. In the instant case only the owner and the insurer alone are impleaded by the claimant. Even so, it was open for the first respondent owner to take appropriate steps to examine before the Tribunal the driver and conductor of the bus who are none other than his own employees to prove his case as set out in the written statement. But I find that apart from making the averments in the written statement, no independent evidence has been adduced by the first respondent owner to prove these statements. It is the specific case of the claimant that before he could make a complete entry into the bus, the conductor gave the bell pursuant to which the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent way thereby throwing the claimant out of the bus through the door. In support of this version, the claimant entered the witness-box as PW 1 and gave evidence. In support of this version, the claimant entered the witness-box as PW 1 and gave evidence. He has categorically sworn that the bus was set in motion by the driver before he could make a complete entry into the bus and as a result thereof he fell down form the bus sustaining injuries. He has given the nature of the injuries sustained by him as also the treatment undergone by him after the accident. Having perused the testimony of the claimant as PW 1, I am inclined to believe that his version is true. Had the vehicle been set in motion after he made a complete entry into the bus, then even assuming that he lost balance because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus at the curve ahead, he would have fallen down inside the us itself rather than being thrown out. The fact that the claimant was thrown outside the bus probabilises his case that the conductor gave the bell and driver drove the bus before he could make a complete entry into the bus. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding, that both the driver and conductor who are the servants of the first respondent owner are primarily liable for the accident as both of them were negligent in their conduct - the conductor in giving the bell before the claimant could enter the bus completely and the driver in driving the bus without proper care and caution. Therefore, I set aside the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence and find that the driver and conductor were guilty of negligence which caused the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant." [See : State of Maharashtra v. Gulabi Sudhu and others reported in 1995 ACJ 965, Bombay; Radha Kishan Sachdeva and others v. Flt. Lt. L.D. Sharma and another reported in 1994 ACJ 109 Delhi; Hargo Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma and others reported in 1994 ACJ 450 Delhi; Anuradha Varma and others v. State of Kerala reported in 1994 ACJ 353 Kerala;Vaddepalli Rajesham v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2002 ACJ 1993 AP]." 14. It is also necessary to note that insurance company is worried about driver but not worried about owner who has remained absent and considering it, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar cannot be accepted. Therefore, same is rejected. It is also necessary to note that insurance company is worried about driver but not worried about owner who has remained absent and considering it, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Mazmudar cannot be accepted. Therefore, same is rejected. Claims tribunal has rightly examined matter and rightly assessed income and rightly deducted personal expenses as well as rent of rickshaw. Considering age of deceased on the date of accident, claims tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 16 and, therefore, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has properly decided matter and no error has been committed which would require interference of this court. Therefore, there is no substance in this appeal and same is required to be dismissed. 15. In result, this appeal is dismissed. 16. Since this court has dismissed first appeal today, no order is required to be passed in civil application. Therefore, civil application for stay is disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.