Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company assailing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota dated 29.11.2006. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Co.Ltd. This appeal is therefore being decided on the basis of the averments of the appeal, award and submissions of the counsel for respondents. 3. This appeal has been filed on the ground that Tribunal has erred in wrongly observing that accident did not take place due to the negligence of tractor-driver but by the rash and negligent driving of jeep-driver, which was insured with the appellant-insurance company. Learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective. There is no direct evidence that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep-driver. Police after investigation also proved that driver of the tractor was negligent and the award was passed contrary to the evidence on record. Police filed final report contending that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the tractor-driver. Site plan also proves that the jeep was extremely on its left side. Witnesses categorically stated in their statements that the it was the tractor-driver, who was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. At the most, it is a matter of composite negligence. Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of compensation even though no negligence on the part of the jeep-driver was found proved. The appeal therefore be allowed and the award of the Tribunal be set-aside. 4. Shri N.U. Qazi, learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondent No.1 has opposed the appeal and argued that claimant suffered amputation of her right hand above the elbow as a result of the accident, which took place due to the negligence of jeep-driver i.e. Abdul Siraz-respondent No.2. It was argued that the jeep-driver boarded 10 passengers out of the permissible limit in the jeep therefore he was rightly held negligent. It was argued that tractor came from the opposite side and the jeep-driver did not maintain the proper distance between the tractor and jeep particularly when jeep-driver already saw the tractor coming from opposite side from a long distance of about 20 feet and despite this, the jeep-driver did not give warning to the claimant sitting in the jeep. Tribunal on that basis rightly held the jeep-driver negligent. Tribunal on that basis rightly held the jeep-driver negligent. For amputation of right hand above the elbow and fracture of humorous bone for which 70% permanent disability was assessed, what has been awarded is only Rs.1,50,000/-. Claimant had to remain hospitalized for as many as 15 days. The Tribunal has awar-ded Rs.3,174/- for actual medical expenses, Rs.4,000/- for nutritious diet and in all awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,57,174/-, which is meager amount of compensation looking to permanent disability of 70%. She has to depend on one hand only for performing the work for whole of her life. Learned Tribunal accepting the fact that she must have been earning atleast Rs.1200/- per month as contribution to the family and keeping her age to be 45 years awarded the said sum for loss of income. The appeal therefore be dismissed. 5. Shri Bheem Sain Bairwa, learned counsel appearing for owner & driver of the jeep-respondents No.2 and 3 argued that it was the tractor-driver, who was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and hit the jeep from a close distance. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal attributing the entire negligence on the part of the jeep-driver is perverse and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. At the most, it is a matter of composite negligence and jeep-driver alone cannot alone be held responsible for the negligence. Considering the fact that tractor could not be traced out and the police had filed final report; for that reason, the claimant would have option to proceed from either of the tort-feasor. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award, I find that mere fact that tractor could not be traced out, does not lead to conclusion that jeep-driver was not at all negligent or there was total negligence on the part of the tractor-driver. Even if the Court proceeds on assumption that both were compositely negligent then also, claimant had the option either to tort-feasor. In the present case, negligent was very much on the side of the jeep-driver because he allowed 10 passengers in his jeep out of the permissible sitting limit of passengers. He did not warn the claimant, who was sitting in the jeep when he already saw the tractor coming from the opposite direction from a long distance of 20 feet. In the present case, negligent was very much on the side of the jeep-driver because he allowed 10 passengers in his jeep out of the permissible sitting limit of passengers. He did not warn the claimant, who was sitting in the jeep when he already saw the tractor coming from the opposite direction from a long distance of 20 feet. He was driving the jeep in a very rash and negligent manner and did not maintain the proper distance between the jeep and tractor, which is why right hand of the claimant came in the contact of the tractor and by the force of dashing hit by the tractor, her right hand was amputed above the elbow. 7. The award in my view, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or perversity. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.