JUDGMENT 1. 1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 23-2-2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur District Jaipur, (for short the learned Tribunal ) in claim case No. 279/2006 (239/2006) whereby an award has been passed in favour of the claimants respondents and against the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1-2-2006 when deceased Chandra Kanta was going from scooter from the house of her brother then a Mini Bus bearing No. RJ-14-P-6131 came suddenly rashly and negligently and hit Chandra Kanta resulting her death. The said bus was being driven by respondent No. 3, owned by respondent No. 4. At the time of the alleged accident the age of the deceased was 44 years. 3. FIR was lodged regarding this incident. Thereafter, claimants appellants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the learned tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not considered the facts regarding negligence of the driver of the mini bus and also not considered the fact of quantum. He submits that mere fact that the driver has been charge-sheet by the Police cannot be said the sole ground for holding the appellant liable 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 his own reason for holding the driver negligent. He submits that the deceased was getting pension Rs. 2,100/- per month as per the case of the claimants and even then the learned Tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on higher side. Lastly, he submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded interest to the claimants on higher side. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. The police has filed charge-sheet against the driver of the mini bus for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A, IPC. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. The police has filed charge-sheet against the driver of the mini bus for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A, IPC. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 6. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 7. In the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the award dated 23-2-2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur District Jaipur, in claim case No. 279/2006 (239/2006).Appeal dismissed. *******