Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 23.3.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur whereby, award in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the respondent-claimants. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold arguments. First argument is that in fact, incident took place because the Jeep bearing No.RJ-32-G-0246 hit the bus of the RSRTC bearing No.RJ-14-P-0974. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the statement of NAW-1 Babulal. It was argued that Babulal was a mechanic and the bus was in fact being repaired and was in a standing condition, which was hit by the jeep as a result of which, deceased-Prem Kumar, who was sitting in the jeep died in that accident. His second contention is that the jeep owner and driver of the jeep have not been impleaded as party. Claim petition therefore be dismissed. Learned counsel argued that merely because challan has been filed against driver Babulal, it does not mean that he was still negligent. Appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to make compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and argued that mere fact that Babulal was a mechanic, it does not mean that he had gone to repair. He in his statement admitted that even though he was a mechanic but no driver was available therefore he was acting as a driver and he taken the bus to the destination at 9.00 p.m. in the night. This witness has admitted that he was facing criminal trial in the Court at Kotputli in which challan has been filed for negligence of the driver, against whom they proceeded in the matter. Negligence of the bus driver of the appellant-RSRTC has been prima-facie proved from the investigation of the police. Learned counsel argued that salaried income of the deceased was proved at Rs.4000/- vide Exh.P.11, which was given by the owner. This fact has been proved by AW-1 Geeta Devi. Even then, the learned Tribunal has accepted the income of Rs.3000/- per month. He was an employee in a private firm. His income should have been computed on that basis. 4. This fact has been proved by AW-1 Geeta Devi. Even then, the learned Tribunal has accepted the income of Rs.3000/- per month. He was an employee in a private firm. His income should have been computed on that basis. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, I find that there is no merit in the argument that Jeep hit the bus of the RSRTC while it was being repaired by the mechanic. Babulal was driver at the relevant time in the bus and was substantially working as mechanic with the appellant-RSRTC but he has admitted in his statement that he was given the temporary duty to act as a driver because no regular bus driver was available at the relevant time. That fact could not be proved that the jeep hit the bus while it was being repaired. The income of the deceased accepted as Rs.3000/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable because he was working in a firm and age of the deceased at the relevant was 21 years. The award appears to be reasonable and not excessive. 5. I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.