JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals relate to common award dated 9.3.2004 passed in Claim Petitions No. 275/2000, 227/2000, 276/2000, 278/2000 and 280/2000 by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge No.9 Jaipur City, Jaipur (in short the MACT) they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that the claimants filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries received by Ashok Kumar and Smt. Kiran and for the death of Kumari Divya, Tolaram and Shyam Lal. The said claim petitions were later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.9 Jaipur City, Jaipur where the same were registered as claim petitions Nos. 28/2004, 29/2004, 30/2004, 31/2004 and 32/2004. It was alleged in the claim petitions that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of Matadeen, who was driving bus o. RJ 18 P 0733 belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short R.S.R.T.C.) when all the victims were traveling in the Tata Mobile No. HR 21 3643 which was being driven by Shyam Lal, resulting in death of Tola Ram, Shyam Lal, and Kumari Divya and injuries to Ashok Kumar and Smt. Kiran. The FIR to the incident was lodged at Police Station, Harmada bearing FIR No. 351/1999. The R.S.R.T.C. filed reply to the claim petitions before the Tribunal denying the averments made by the claimants. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the Tata Mobile driver. It was argued by the R.S.R.T.C. that in these circumstances the R.S.R.T.C. cannot be held liable for making the payment of any compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues. The claimants and the R.S.R.T.C. produced evidence. After considering the claim petitions, written statements and the evidence produced by the parties, the MACT allowed the claim petitions and directed the appellant R.S.R.T.C. to pay the compensation. Against the common award dated 9.3.2004, the R.S.R.T.C. preferred four appeals for quashing and setting the award of the M.A.C.T. and the claimants filed two appeals, as mentioned above for enhancing the claims. 4. Against the common award dated 9.3.2004, the R.S.R.T.C. preferred four appeals for quashing and setting the award of the M.A.C.T. and the claimants filed two appeals, as mentioned above for enhancing the claims. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant R.S.R.T.C. has contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the accident in question occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of R.S.R.T.C. There is ample evidence on record that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the Tata Mobile Driver, when he was trying to overtake a truck in a very hurry manner and did not care to see the bus which was coming from the opposite direction. It was argued that in these circumstances the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. cannot be held guilty. The learned counsel has contended that the driver has tried his best to avoid the accident but the fact is that the Tata Mobile driver came out of sudden in front of the bus and as such there was no time left with the driver to avoid the accident and in such circumstances, the contributory negligence of the Tata Mobile driver cannot be ruled out. The driver of bus has been charge sheeted by the Police, cannot be said to be the sole ground for holding the driver negligent, because it is settled law that the finding of the police authorities, is not binding upon the Tribunal and the Tribunal is supposed to give its own reasons for holding the driver negligent. The driver, owner and insurer of the Tata Mobile have not been impleaded as party to the claim petition and as such the claim petitions deserve to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the R.S.R.T.C. prayed that the appeals may be allowed and the award may be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, appearing for the injured claimants and the claimants who have filed claim petitions on account of death of Kumari Divya, Tolaram and Shyam Lal, contended that the findings recorded by the MACT in relation to issue No.1 holding the driver of the R.S.R.T.C. bus negligent driving and rejecting the plea of the R.S.R.T.C. that the accident took place on account of negligence of driver of the Tata Mobile, is just and proper. The learned counsel contended that while computing the compensation on account of death of Tolaram, the MACT has not computed it in right perspective and the same is to be enhanced and for the loss of vehicle the claimants claimed Rs. 1,70,000/- but the MACT only granted Rs. 80,000/- this amount is to be enhanced. In relation to damages of the vehicle the learned counsel for the claimant placed reliance on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Virendrakumar Singh (1986 ACJ 132 = 1985 RLW 264). 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in my view the MACT has not committed any error in giving findings on the issues. The issues framed by the MACT, reads as under : 1- vk;k iz'uxr okgu la[;k vkjts 18 ih 0733 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 1 ds }kjk fnukad 20-11-1999 dks 10-30 ,-,e- gjekM+k t;iqj ds ikl mä okgu dks mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i v'kksd] fdj.k ds pksVsa vkbZ ,oa rksykjke] fnO;k ,oa ';keyky dh e`R;q gqbZ gS ,oa okgu la[;k ,p-vkj- 21 3643 {kfrxzLr gqbZ\ 2- vk;k mä okgu pkyd rc mä okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k 2 ds fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk FkkA\ 3- vk;k foi{kh la[;k 2 jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjokgu fuxe }kjk vius fyf[kr dFku dh izkjafHkd vkifÙk;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k dFku ds eísutj chek dEiuh vius nkf;Ro ls eqä gks ldrh gS] ugha rks bldk izHkko\ 4- vk;k nkosnkj vius nkok esa vafdr iz'uxr jkf'k ;k vU; dksbz U;k; lEer jkf'k ik ldk gS] gka rks dkSu dkSu nkosnkj fdruh fdruh jkf'k fdl fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ik ldrs gSa\ 5- vuqrks"k\ 7. The MACT in relation to issue No.1 held that the evidence of Matadeen bus driver is not trustworthy. The police filed charge-sheet against the driver of the bus for the negligence driving on account of which the accident took place. The driver has not stated at any stage that the driver of the Tata Mobile overtake the Truck on account of which the accident took place. The MACT also rejected the claim of the R.S.R.T.C. for contributory negligence on account of the fact at no stage they took any such plea, and hence, this plea of contributory negligence was rejected by the MACT. The MACT also rejected the claim of the R.S.R.T.C. for contributory negligence on account of the fact at no stage they took any such plea, and hence, this plea of contributory negligence was rejected by the MACT. The MACT in relation to issue No.1 held as under : ^^xokg ,u-,-M-1 ekrknhu tks lk{; esa is'k gqvk gS] mlus viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd VkVk eksckby ,d Vªd dks vkWojVsd djrh gqbZ vk;h vkSj esjh cl ds MªkbZoj lkbZM ls Vdjk;hA esjh cl lgh fn'kk esa cka;h lkbZM py jgh FkhA ;g nq?kZVuk VkVk eksckbZy dh xyrh ls gqbZ] D;ksafd og vkWojVsd djrh gqbZ vk jgh Fkh] ysfdu vizkFkhZ dh bl lk{; ,u-,-M-1 dh lk{; esa cy ugha ikrk gwa] D;ksafd vizkFkhZx.k dh rjQls tks tokc is'k fd;k x;k gS]mlesa bl izdkj dh dksbZ ckr ugha crk;h xbZ gS fd VkVk eksckbZy Vªd dks vkWojVsd djrh gqbZ vk;h vkSj bl dkj.k nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZA bl izdkj dk dksbZ iz'u xokg ,-M-1 v'kksd dqekj ls Hkh izfrijh{kk esa ugha iwNk x;k gS fd VkVk eksckbZy us ,d Vªd dks vkWojVsd fd;k] fd bl dkj.k nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZA xokg ,-M-3 Jherh fdj.k] tks fd ?kVuk ds le; p'enhn o bUtMZ xokg Fkh] blls Hkh bl izdkj dh dksbZ ckr izfrijh{kk esa ugha iwNh xbZ gS rFkk iqfyl us tks vuqla/kku fd;k gS]mlesa bl izdkj dh dksbZ ckr ugha ik;h xbZ fd VkVk eksckbZy us ,d Vªd dks vkWojVsd fd;k gksA vr% ,u-,-M-1 ekrknhu xokg dh lk{; mä vk/kkjksa ij fo'oluh; ugha gSA lkFk gh ,u-,-M-1 ekrknhu us izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd iqfyl us esjs f[kykQ pkyku is'k fd;k gS rFkk ;g ckr Hkh lgh gS fd g; ckr ugha fy[kk;h fd ,d Vªd dks VkVk eksckby vkWojVsd djds vk;h gks vkSj esjh lkbZM esa VDdj ekjh gksA ;fn bl izdkj dh dksbZckr gksrh rks ;g rF; vo'; vkrhA fo}ku vf/koäk vizkFkhZx.k dh ;g Hkh nyhy gS fd nksuksa i{kksa dh dUVªhC;qVjh usxyhtsUlh Fkh] ysfdu fo}ku vf/koäk vizkFkhZx.k dh bl nyhy esa Hhk cy ugha ikrk gwa] D;ksafd bl izdkj ds dksbZ cpko dgkuh izfrijh{kk esa ugha vk;h gS] cfYd vizkFkhZ la-1 ekrknhu tks fd cl dk pkyd Fkk] mlus Hkh ;g ckr viuh lk{; esa ugha crk;h gS fd VkVk eksckby dh dUVªhC;qVjh usxyhtsUlh Fkh] ftlds dkj.k ;g nq?kZVuk gqbZA izfrijh{kk esa Hkh bl izdkj ds dksbZ iz'u xokgksa ls ugha fd;s gSaA vr% mijksä foospu ds vk/kkj ij eSa fo}ku vf/koäk vizkFkhZx.k dh nyhy esa dksbZ cy ugha ikrk gwaA vr% ;g fook|d la-1 izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa ,oa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA 8. The MACT gave reasons for not accepting the plea of the driver for negligence driving of the Tata Mobile driver and further rejecting the pla of R.S.R.T.C. for contributory negligence. I am in agreement with the reasons given by the MACT in deciding the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. 9. The issue No.2 related about the proof of driver of the bus that he was in employment of the R.S.R.T.C. and was driving the bus at the time of accident. It is an admitted fact that the R.S.R.T.C. gave notice to driver Matadeen for negligently driving the bus, thus it is proved that Matadeen was driving the bus at the time of accident and he was in employment of the R.S.R.T.C. Thus the issue regarding employing Matadeen as driver is proved and this issue was also decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. The learned counsel for the MACT has not been able to point out any discrepancy in relation to deciding issue No.2 against the MACT. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT regarding issue No.2. 10. The finding on issue No.3 is dependent on the issue No.1 and since the issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimants and the non-claimants have not been able to prove that the accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the Tata Mobile. Hence, the finding on this issue cannot be said to be perverse. The issue No.3 was decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants. The finding of the MACT was that when it is proved that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of the driver of the bus and hence non-impleadment of the driver of the Tata Mobile and insurer of the Tata Mobile cannot come in the way of the claimants. S.B.C.M.A. 1172/2004 and S.B.C.M.A. 1894/2004 11. The R.S.R.T.C. filed appeal No. 1172/2004 in relation to grant of compensation in the amount of Rs. 31,000/- for the injuries sustained by injured Ashok Kumar and for damages to the vehicle No. HR 21 3643 in the amount of Rs. 80,000/-. Whereas appeal No. 1894/2004 was filed by Ashok Kumar for enhancing the amount in relation to damages caused to vehicle. It was stated that the surveyor assessed the damages amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/-. 31,000/- for the injuries sustained by injured Ashok Kumar and for damages to the vehicle No. HR 21 3643 in the amount of Rs. 80,000/-. Whereas appeal No. 1894/2004 was filed by Ashok Kumar for enhancing the amount in relation to damages caused to vehicle. It was stated that the surveyor assessed the damages amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/-. The MACT correctly assessed the damages caused to the vehicle and further the compensation in the amount of Rs. 31,000/- granted to Ashok Kumar for the injuries received by him. The claimant Ashok Kumar produced salary slip that he was drawing Rs. 96,000/- per year and in this manner for two months he was on leave and on account of this the MACT counted his salary for two months Rs. 16,000/-. The claimant Ashok Kumar has not submitted any disability certificate. He received two injuries. On account of two injuries the MACT counted Rs. 10,000/- for both the injuries and for other heads like mental agony, transportation, medicine and food total amount of Rs. 31,000/- were counted. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. The MACT also awarded Rs. 80,000/- for the damages caused to the vehicle of the claimant. On the basis of the damages caused to the vehicle the MACT computed Rs. 80,000/-. The MACT has also considered the surveyor report and thereafter came to the finding of granting of Rs. 80,000/- for the damages caused to the vehicle. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimant Ashok Kumar has also not been able to point out any discrepancy in awarding Rs. 80,000/- towards damages caused to the vehicle. In th cited ruling the MACT granted Rs. 51,299/- on the basis of the estimates submitted by the claimant. This amount was not increased by the High court. Thus this ruling cannot help the petitioner to get any further increased amount. In this manner both the appeals filed by the R.S.R.T.C. and the claimant Ashok Kumar deserve to be rejected. S.B.C.M.A. 1179/2004 12. Appeal No. 1179/2004 has been filed by the R.S.R.T.C. against the award of the MACT granting Rs. 1,30,000/- on account of death of Kumari Divya, who was daughter of Ashok Kumar and Kiran Sharma claimants. Kumari Divya was aged about 8 years and hence the MACT granted Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation for her death. S.B.C.M.A. 1179/2004 12. Appeal No. 1179/2004 has been filed by the R.S.R.T.C. against the award of the MACT granting Rs. 1,30,000/- on account of death of Kumari Divya, who was daughter of Ashok Kumar and Kiran Sharma claimants. Kumari Divya was aged about 8 years and hence the MACT granted Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation for her death. I am in agreement with the finding granting compensation to the claimants for death of Kumari Divya. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. Thus the appeal filed by R.S.R.T.C. against grant of Rs.1,30,000/- for death of Kumari Divya, deserves to be rejected. S.B.C.M.A. 1913/2004 and S.B.C.M.A. 792/2004 13. In relation to claim petition No. 30/2004, for the death of Tolaram, appeal No. 1913/2004 has been filed by the claimants for enhancing the claim amount. It is contended in the appeal that the computation should have been done on the basis of the gross income, whereas the MACT deducted the income tax amount Rs. 67,160/-. The claimants are not entitled to claim compensation on the basis of the gross income. Even if the deceased survived he would not have got this much amount and income tax was to be paid by him. The MACT has rightly deducted the income tax on the gross income. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellants have not been able to site a single ruling in which the income was computed on the basis of the gross income. Thus the appeal filed by he appellant claimants No. 1913/2004 stands rejected. 14. The R.S.R.T.C. also filed appeal No. 792/2004 in relation to award passed in the compensation case No. 30/2004 which was related to death of Tola am. I have gone through the findings arrived at by he MACT. In my view the MACT has rightly arrived at the conclusion and awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 8,10,335/-. The MACT estimated the age of the deceased as 75 year. The MACT determined yearly income of the deceased Rs. 3,08,700/- as per return Ex.2 and out of which Rs. 67,610/- were deducted as income tax. Deducting this amount from the yearly income the remaining amount comes to be Rs. 2,41,089/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount from this, only Rs. 1,60,667/- remained to be incurred by the deceased towards his family. The MACT used the multiplier of 5. Towards love and affection the MACT determined Rs. 5000/-. 67,610/- were deducted as income tax. Deducting this amount from the yearly income the remaining amount comes to be Rs. 2,41,089/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount from this, only Rs. 1,60,667/- remained to be incurred by the deceased towards his family. The MACT used the multiplier of 5. Towards love and affection the MACT determined Rs. 5000/-. For cremation Rs.2,000/- were determined. In this manner the MACT rightly determined Rs. 8,10,335/-. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. Thus the appeal No. 792/2004 filed by the R.S.R.T.C. deserves to be rejected and stands rejected. S.B.C.M.A. 1171/2004 15. The R.S.R.T.C. has filed appeal No. 1171/2004 in relation to award passed in the compensation case No. 32/2004 which was related to death of Shyamlal. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the MACT. In my view the MACT has rightly arrived at the conclusion and awarded compenation in the amount of Rs. 6,49,092/-. The MACT estimated the age of the deceased 50 years. The MACT determined yearly income of the deceased Rs. 1,06,870/- as per return Ex.61 and out of which Rs. 19,313/- were deducted as income tax. Deducting this amount from the yearly income the remaining amount comes to be Rs. 87,557/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount from this, only Rs.58,372/- remained to be incurred by the deceased towards his family. The MACT used the multiplier of 11. Towards love and affection the MACT determined Rs. 5000/-. For cremation Rs. 2,000/- were determined. In this manner the MACT rightly determined Rs. 6,49,092/-. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. Thus the appeal No. 1171/2004 filed but the R.S.R.T.C. deserves to be rejected and stands rejected. 16. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, misc. appeals Nos.1172/2004, 1171/2004, 1179/2004 and 792/2004 filed by the R.S.R.T.C. and misc. appeals Nos. 1894/2004 and 1913/2004 filed by the claimants, fail and are hereby rejected. The stay applications also stand rejected. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.