JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. IN the given facts, I do not find it necessary to issue notice in the application and for the reasons set out therein, delay of 35 days in filing the appeal, which has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. 2. HRTC has assailed the award dated 17.10.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, in MAC Petition No.20/2009, titled as Smt. Simmi versus Jaan Mohammad and another, whereby claimants' petition, under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for award of compensation stands allowed. In terms of the impugned award, a sum of Rs.6,66,000/- stands awarded to the claimants. On 15.6.2009, Ashwani Kumar (deceased), who was driving a motorcycle met with an accident. The offending vehicle (Bus), owned by the present appellant, was driven by Jaan Mohammad (respondent No.2). As a result of the accident, Ashwani Kumar died. He was 35 years of age and having a proven income of Rs.4,500/- per month. 3. WHILE adjudicating the claim petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the deceased Ashwani Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.HP-20-9423 on 15.6.2009 at 11.20 a.m. at Jhalera? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, as alleged? OPD 4. Relief. 4. THE fact that the bus was owned by the appellant and that Jaan Mahammad was engaged as its driver is not in dispute, so also the fact that the vehicle was involved in the accident, resulting into death of Ashwani Kumar. The Tribunal, based on the testimony of the relevant witnesses, has rightly arrived at the conclusion about the negligence of respondent No.2, who was driving the offending vehicle, owned by the present appellant. The deceased died as a result of injuries suffered on his head, which fact is not disputed and stands established through the testimony of Dr. Satinder Chauhan (PW-2) and postmortem report (Ex. PW-2/A). It is also not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence and was authorized to drive the vehicle in question. 5. MR. Satinder Chauhan (PW-2) and postmortem report (Ex. PW-2/A). It is also not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid licence and was authorized to drive the vehicle in question. 5. MR. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken me through his record with regard to the findings of negligence of respondent No.2. Plea of contributory negligence, from the perusal of the testimony of the witnesses, only merits rejection. Also, criminal proceedings are pending against respondent No.2. 6. ALSO, there cannot be much dispute with regard to the income of the deceased, which fact, in any event, stands established from certificate (Ex. PW-5/A). Ashwani Kumar was working as a driver. He was 35 years of age. He is survived by his wife, three minor children and parents. While awarding the compensation, the age of the survivors and their dependency upon the deceased have been taken into account by the Tribunal. Hence, the award cannot be said to be perverse/illegal/erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.