JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the award dated 27.3.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,23,000/- in favour of the claimants-respondents, the appellant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation', for short), has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.8.2006 around 4.00 AM, when Kamlesh was driving the motorcycle along with Shriom, a bus belonging to the Corporation, registered as RJ-08- P-503, being driven rashly and negligently, came from the opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle. Resultantly, both Kamlesh and Shriom died on the spot. Since the claimants, who are parents and brothers, lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. After filing claim petition, one Smt. Umesh Kumari, respondent No. 6, filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code before the learned Tribunal for impleading her as party respondents claiming herself to be the widow of the victim Shri Kamlesh. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal and Smt. Umesh Kumari was arrayed as party-respondents. The appellant-Corporation submitted its reply to the claim petition denying the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined three witnesses and submitted number of documents. Smt. Umesh Kumari, the widow of the deceased, Kamlesh, was also examined as NAW-1. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 27.3.2010, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Virendra Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, has raised the following contentions before this Court :firstly, in absence of proof of income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing his income as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Secondly, since the deceased was a bachelor, it cannot be said that the father was dependent upon Kamlesh. Lastly, the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that 50% of the negligence was that of Kamlesh who was driving the motorcycle at the relevant time. Therefore, the Corporation could not have been saddled with the complete liability of having to pay compensation. After all, it was a case of contributory negligence. 4. Lastly, the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that 50% of the negligence was that of Kamlesh who was driving the motorcycle at the relevant time. Therefore, the Corporation could not have been saddled with the complete liability of having to pay compensation. After all, it was a case of contributory negligence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that according to Dwarkalal (AW-2), his son, Kamlesh, was engaged in agricultural activities and used to sell milk and other sundry items. According to him, his son was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, this figure has not been believed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that no documentary evidence has been submitted to support the said claim. Instead, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Considering the fact that the accident had occurred in 2006, considering the fact that the deceased was engaged in agricultural activities, the assessment of income of Rs. 3,000/- per month is a reasonable one. Therefore, there is nothing illegal about the assessment of income done by the Tribunal. Hence, the first contention' raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. 6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel about the deceased being a bachelor is negated by the record of the case. Although it is true that the claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased and by his brothers, but subsequently Smt. Umesh Kumari, the wife of the deceased, was added as a party respondents. She was added as a party respondents after hearing all the parties to the claim petition. Thus, clearly the deceased was not a bachelor, but was a married man. Moreover, the marital status of a person does not determine the dependency of the parents upon their son. According to the claimants, they were financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, they are entitled to the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the second contention is also unsustainable. 7. As far as the last contention is concerned, Mahaveer (AW-3) has categorically stated that he works in a restaurant and the accident had occurred near the restaurant. As an eye-witness, he has graphically described the accident.. According to him, the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Hence, the second contention is also unsustainable. 7. As far as the last contention is concerned, Mahaveer (AW-3) has categorically stated that he works in a restaurant and the accident had occurred near the restaurant. As an eye-witness, he has graphically described the accident.. According to him, the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. Due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus, both the boys, who were riding the motorcycle, expired on the spot. The driver of the bus, Veerpal Singh, was caught by the crowd while he was trying to escape from the scene of the accident. Considering the testimony of an independent witness, that too a testimony which has not been demolished, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that the negligence was totally on the part of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the last contention raised by the learned counsel that it is a case of contributory negligence is baseless. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******