JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar and Dinesh Gupta,J. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 31.1.2014 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bulandshahar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.140 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of this appeal are that the claimants-respondents preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No.140 of 2012 under Section 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming of compensation. 3. As per the contention of the claimants the claimants are the legal representative and widow, minor sons, father and parents of the deceased Iqbal, who died in an accident occurred on 19.4.2012. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 29 years and was working as conductor in Bus bearing Registration No. UP-15 AT-2369. 4. On 19.4.2012 at about 3.30 PM on route Jahangeerabad to Bulandshahar, the Driver of Bus No. UP-15 AT-2369 stopped his bus at a petrol pump situated in Village Ronda, District Bulandshahar for taking diesel, the deceased also step down from the Bus and was standing in front of Bus and suddenly the Driver of the said Bus without any signal or indication started his Bus and moved ahead and hit the conductor of the Bus, as a result the deceased Iqbal sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. 5. The First Information Report was lodged and a case was registered as crime no. 191 of 2012 under Section 279 and 304-A IPC on 19.4.2011 at about 9.10 PM and postmortem of the deceased was also conducted next day in Bulandshahar. 6. At the time of the accident, the deceased was getting a pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 50/- as daily allowance per day. 7. Hence, the claimants preferred this claim petition for grant of compensation. 8. The owner of the Bus has filed written statement and opposed the petition stating therein that the age of the deceased has wrongly been shown. There is no income proof of the deceased and the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the Bus No.UP-15 AT-2369. 9. The Insurance Company has also filed written statement. 10. The Tribunal after taking the evidence of the parties, allowed the claim-petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,14,500/- as compensation to the claimants. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal before this Court. 12. 9. The Insurance Company has also filed written statement. 10. The Tribunal after taking the evidence of the parties, allowed the claim-petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,14,500/- as compensation to the claimants. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal before this Court. 12. Heard Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the caveator. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that infact the accident occurred due to own negligence of the conductor of the Bus, who was wrongly standing in front of the Bus. It is higly improbable that when the Bus started with a noice still the deceased did not move away from the Bus and the accident is nothing but result of his own negligence. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Court has wrongly computed the compensation taken the pay of the conductor as 6500/-, per month, which could not be proved by the claimants and the compensation is highly excessive and arbitrary. 15. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. Admittedly, the involvement of the Bus in question and the employment of the deceased as conductor on the said Bus has not been denied by the owner of the Bus. Even on the basis of evidence available on record, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding regarding time, place, date and death of the deceased in the above said accident. 17. So far as the question of negligence is concerned, there is a categorical finding of the Tribunal that the Driver of the Bus was negligence that without looking ahead that some person is standing, he started his Bus and moved ahead crushing the conductor on the spot. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court on the point of negligence. The owner of the Insurance Company has also failed to produce the Driver of the Bus, who would have been the best person to prove that he was not negligent or the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the said Bus. 19. In absence of any material, the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the offending vehicle. 20. 19. In absence of any material, the Tribunal was right in holding that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the offending vehicle. 20. So far as the quantum is concerned, the opposite party-owner of the Bus admitted in their written statement that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.5000/- from them and also Rs. 50/- as daily allowance, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in assuming income of the deceased as Rs. 6500/- per month. 21. So far as the age is concerned, there is no irregularity in determining the age of the deceased. Thus, so far as the quantum is concerned in various pronouncement of this Court as well as Apex Court, the word just compensation is used and finding of the Tribunal regarding the computation of just compensation should not be interfered in absence of any material contrary to the same. 22. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. 23. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 24. Office is directed to remit back the statutory amount to the concerned Tribunal with four weeks.