JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 8.1.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in M.A.C.T. Case No. 121/2002 whereby an award of Rs. 3,22,000/- has been passed in favour of the respondent-claimants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26th June, 2002 at about 12:15 PM, the bus belonging to the appellants was coming from Jalore to Jodhpur and on the way near Vayad Bus Stand, a tractor No. RJT-6779 being driven by Shri Chatra Ram over turned and Shri Chatatra Ram came beneath the tractor and sustained grievous injuries and ultimately died. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 5 preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,40,012/-. The claim petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 5 was contested by the appellant and respondent No. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed as many as four issues. The parties adduced evidence and exhibited several documents. 4. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and has held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. While deciding the issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month and after assessing compensation under several heads has awarded Rs. 3,22,000/- in favour of the claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the validity of the award passed by the Tribunal and has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the issue No. 1 against the appellants while holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is contended that from the site inspection report prepared by the police and other documents, the negligence on the part of the bus driver had not been proved and it was proved that bus had not hit the tractor and the tractor got over turned on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month though no evidence to this effect was produced by the claimants. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month though no evidence to this effect was produced by the claimants. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants under the head of travelling expenses for reaching their village for the purpose of cremation of late Shri Mangi Lal. 7. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 supported the award and has argued that for the purpose of proving the income of the deceased, Jamabandi and Girdwari of the agricultural land owned by the deceased were submitted and on the basis of said documents, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/-. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in deciding issue No. 2 as claimants were able to prove that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. In respect of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of travelling expenses, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that air travelling tickets were produced before the learned Tribunal as Exhibits 19 to 24 and on the basis of same, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the said head. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the award passed by the learned Tribunal. While deciding the issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the material placed before it and on the basis of the same, decided that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. 10. This court has gone through the findings given by the learned tribunal in respect of the issue No. 1 and found that there is no infirmity in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No. 1. 11. 10. This court has gone through the findings given by the learned tribunal in respect of the issue No. 1 and found that there is no infirmity in the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue No. 1. 11. While deciding issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the claimants showing the ownership of the deceased for the agricultural land and has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. After going through the findings given by the learned Tribunal in respect of the income of the deceased, this Court does not find any illegality in the same. 12. So far as compensation awarded by the tribunal in respect of the travelling and funeral expenses are concerned, this Court feels that the same is on higher side. It can be presumed that even if the father of the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 would have died of natural death then also they had to rush to the village and for that also they had to travel by air. 13. In such circumstances, this Court feels that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of travelling and funeral expenses is liable to be reduced to Rs. 18,000/- in place of Rs. 40,000/-. So far as compensation in respect of other heads is concerned, the same is not liable to be interfered with and remain the same as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 14. With these observations, the appeal preferred by the appellants is partly allowed and the award dated 8.1.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******