JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter `the 1988 Act') has been filed by the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter `the Corporation') against the award dated 30-1-2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem ka Thana, District Sikar (hereinafter `the Tribunal'). Thereby the Tribunal has awarded to the respondents-claimants (hereinafter `the claimants') compensation for a sum of Rs. 8,35,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from 17-2-2010, i.e. the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Corporation and perused the impugned award dated 30-1-2014. 3. The claimants, a 26 years old widow of one Banshidhar, three infant children between the age of 3 and 5, as also her in-laws, filed a petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act for the death of Banshidhar, in an accident of 25-11-2009, at 11.00 AM. Banshidhar was at the relevant time stated to be sitting on a tractor parked off the road near Jhadaya busstand, when the Corporation's bus bearing registration No. RJ-18/P-2002, rashly and negligently driven on the wrong side of the road collided with it. Banshidhar sustained injuries and died in the course of treatment. FIR with regard to the accident was registered at Police Station Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. Following investigation challan was filed against the driver of the offending bus of the Corporation for rash and negligent driving. In the circumstances, the claimants as legal representatives of the deceased Banshidhar filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 58,70,000/-. 4. The claim petition was opposed by the non claimant Shyam Sunder, driver of the offending bus of the Corporation. It was submitted that no accident as alleged took place and in fact the deceased and Pokharmal were carrying over-loaded bricks in the tractor due to which at the place of accident the tractor lost its balance, the deceased Banshidhar fell on the road was overrun by the tractor itself, sustained injuries and thereafter died. The claim petition was also opposed on the ground that the tractor on which the deceased was sitting was itself parked on the wrong side of the road. The accident resulted when a child suddenly came on the road, whereupon the driver of the offending bus tried to save him, and hit the tractor wrongly parked on the road. The claim petition was also opposed on the ground that the tractor on which the deceased was sitting was itself parked on the wrong side of the road. The accident resulted when a child suddenly came on the road, whereupon the driver of the offending bus tried to save him, and hit the tractor wrongly parked on the road. Thus negligence was attributed to the driver of the tractor on which Banshidhar was seated. Dismissal of the claim petition was sought. 5. The learned Tribunal framed issues on the pleadings, considered the evidence, both oral and documentary on record found that the driver of the offending bus was responsible for the accident owing to his negligence. The defence of the Corporation, the owner of the offending bus was rejected. The liability for payment of compensation to the claimants was affixed on the Corporation and its driver. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal finding the age of the deceased to be 29 years, at the time of accident, and assessing his income, reckoning for future prospectus, to be Rs. 5200/- per month, after deducting 1/4 amount for the personal expenses of the deceased found loss of dependency at Rs. 3,900/- p.m. Applying the multiplier of 17 with reference to the age of the deceased it assessed the loss of dependency at (3900x12x17) Rs. 7,95,600/-. Rs. 5,000/- on account of funeral expenses and Rs. 35, 000/- for loss of consortium/ love and affection suffered by the claimants widow, three minor children and parents of the deceased Banshidhar. This aggregated to Rs. 8,35,600/- as compensation. Interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was also directed to be paid on the compensation due from the date of the filing of petition to the date of payment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has submitted that the driver of the tractor himself was responsible for the accident as he had wrongly parked the tractor on wrong side of the road. No negligence was attributable to the driver of the bus of the appellant Corporation. The conclusions of the Tribunal finding the driver of the bus negligent were perverse, vitiated by non consideration of the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. No negligence was attributable to the driver of the bus of the appellant Corporation. The conclusions of the Tribunal finding the driver of the bus negligent were perverse, vitiated by non consideration of the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. I find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant Corporation that as the tractor in question was wrongly parked no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the Corporation and hence no compensation was payable by the appellant Corporation. From the evidence on record before the Tribunal it was clear that the driver of the offending bus of the Corporation dashed into the stationary tractor due to which Banshidahr sustained injuries and subsequently died. The Tribunal has rightly found that driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently owing to which it dashed into a stationary tractor parked off the road and not on the carriage way. I also find no force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant Corporation that the tractor driver was at least liable for contributory negligence. The appellant Corporation itself had come with the case that the offending bus indeed hit the tractor when it swerved off the road in allegedly trying to save a child on the road. The tractor parked off the road was stationary at the relevant time. In my opinion, no negligence contributory or otherwise attributable to the tractor driver could therefore be made out. 9. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has considered all aspects of the case i.e. the oral and documentary evidence of the claimants and awarded a just, adequate and fair compensation to the claimants. It was incumbent upon the appellant Corporation to satisfy this court that the compensation determined by the Tribunal was excessive. The appellant Corporation has failed to discharge the burden. The aggregate compensation of Rs. 8,35,600/- as awarded, was constituted of Rs. 7,95,600/- as loss of dependency for the 29 years widow, three infant children as also parents of the deceased Banshidhar, Rs. 5,000/- funeral expenses, and Rs. 35,000/- on account of loss of consortium/ love and affection to claimants. In my considered opinion, salary of deceased Banshidhar, who was stated to be a labourer before the Tribunal, Rs. 4000/- per month was very reasonable. 5,000/- funeral expenses, and Rs. 35,000/- on account of loss of consortium/ love and affection to claimants. In my considered opinion, salary of deceased Banshidhar, who was stated to be a labourer before the Tribunal, Rs. 4000/- per month was very reasonable. The Tribunal then taking into account inflationary trends of the economy and the inevitable enhancement of daily wages of labourers consequent thereto allowed 30% notional additions to the salary on account of future prospectus. The salary on which loss of dependency ascertained was thus taken at Rs. 5,200/- per month, where from amount was deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. In the context of meagre income of deceased at a subsistence level his frugality was obvious and much part of wages of the deceased were equally obviously consumed by his widow, three children as also his parents. The Tribunal hence calculated loss of dependency of the claimants at Rs. 3,900/- per month [ Rs. 5200x75/100]. And multiplicand thus having been arrived at, the Tribunal applied thereto a multiplier of 17 in view of age of deceased at 29 years. A figure of Rs. 7,95,600/- was thus arrived at. Nothing erroneous, illegal, or arbitrary can be attributed to Tribunal's finding for the aforesaid loss of dependency of the claimants resulting from death of Banshidhar. Award of Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 35,000/- for loss of consortium/ love and affection to widow, three infant children and parents of the deceased appears to be just and reasonable and in fact on the lower side. In the absence of cross appeal or even cross objection no enhancement on that count is warranted. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held ad museum that the practice of the appellate court is uniformly to give the greatest assurance to assessment of evidence by the trial court. The burden is on the appellant to show how the judgment under appeal is erroneous or wrong on facts and/ or law. On these tests for interference in appeal, the appellant insurance company has failed. The findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award dated 30-1- 2014 that the driver of the offending bus owned by the appellant Corporation was driving the bus rashly and negligently is based on an objective consideration and wholistic evaluation of the evidence on record. So too with regard to compensation. The findings of the Tribunal in the impugned award dated 30-1- 2014 that the driver of the offending bus owned by the appellant Corporation was driving the bus rashly and negligently is based on an objective consideration and wholistic evaluation of the evidence on record. So too with regard to compensation. The findings aforesaid brook no interference in this appeal.No other issue was agitated in the course of arguments.The miscellaneous appeal is therefore without any force. Dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******