JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal is directed against award dated 15.7.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Case No.316/2013, whereby award for Rs. 9,90,775/- has been allowed in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts noticed are that on 16.5.2011 at about 3:40 PM when Vijendra Singh was travelling in his own jeep bearing no. RJ18 C 3277 for going to Barsinga from Gunga, on Barmer-Jaisalmer National Highway No.15, after he crossed Gunga Police Check-post, a Roadways bus bearing no. RJ10 PA 0076, being driven in high speed and in rash and negligent manner coming from opposite direction, came on wrong side and collided with the jeep of Vijendra Singh. Consequently, Vijendra Singh received grievous injuries and died on the spot. Challan was filed, so also charge-sheet and thereafter the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a compensation to the extent of Rs. 39,45,000/-. The Tribunal framed four issues and all of them were decided against the appellants. The Tribunal after analysing the material, allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 9,90,775/-, which is assailed herein. 3. Counsel for the appellants contended that there was negligence of Vijendra Singh rather than negligence of the driver of the appellant- Corporation, namely Hukum Singh, who was driving the bus on his own side in slow speed, and it was claimed by Hukum Singh that the jeep of Vijendra Singh came on wrong side due to which the accident occurred and, therefore, he contends that there was contributory negligence of Vijendra Singh as well which has not been considered by the Tribunal in passing the impugned award. He further contended that the claim has been allowed in a cursory manner and not in accordance with law and after analysing the material on record. He further contended that the quantum allowed at Rs. 9,90,775/- is highly excessive and abnormal taking into consideration the fact that widow of the deceased Santara Devi, is said to be earning on her own and was not dependant on her husband. It is also contended that in her cross-examination Santara Devi has stated that her husband was residing at a different place on account of his employment. He further contended that no income was pleaded of the deceased and even future prospect ought not to have been allowed by the Tribunal, when even there was no permanency of income or otherwise. It is also contended that in her cross-examination Santara Devi has stated that her husband was residing at a different place on account of his employment. He further contended that no income was pleaded of the deceased and even future prospect ought not to have been allowed by the Tribunal, when even there was no permanency of income or otherwise. He further contended that expenditure of Rs. 1,55,000/- has separately been allowed for the damage to the jeep, but without any basis and going into the extent of the damage to the jeep and merely on the basis of the bills produced by the claimants before the Tribunal, and contended that the award of the Tribunal is perverse and requires consideration. In support of his contentions, counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashikala v. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 0 Supreme (SC) 280 . 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for appellants, and in my view the award of the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference for the reasons henceforth. 5. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact noticed in site-plan, FIR, mechanical reports of the bus as well as the jeep, charge sheet, Post Mortem Report, registration of the bus, driving license of the deceased and insurance of the jeep, while considering the aforesaid claim in the impugned award. It is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that though the driver of the bus, Hukum Singh had stated before the Tribunal that he had filed an application that the driver of the jeep was driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and that he informed the police authorities about the same, but neither before the Tribunal nor before this court such an application/report has been placed by the counsel for the appellants. The Tribunal has clearly and categorically come to the finding that despite of ample opportunities granted the appellants or the driver was unable to give or place on record such report which is said to be filed before the police. Equally there is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that while claim of the driver of the appellants was that a truck had come in between but in the site-plan there is no reference of truck. Equally there is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that while claim of the driver of the appellants was that a truck had come in between but in the site-plan there is no reference of truck. On the contrary the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence of one Hindu Singh, AD.2, who is said to be an eye-witness, and who had stated that the Roadways bus bearing no. RJ10 PA 0076 was being driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner which came near the hotel and the bus was steered to the wrong side and despite the driver of the jeep having steered his vehicle to his extreme left side on kachcha road, but still the bus collided with the jeep which went on the extreme right side of the road. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispel the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal by any other cogent evidence or material. Therefore, in my view on the above finding of facts reached by the Tribunal insofar as negligence of the driver of the appellants' bus is concerned, is certainly proved. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the other material on record, including FIR, charge-sheet, Post Mortem Report, mechanical reports and other factors. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 6. Now insofar as the other issues raised by the counsel for appellants is concerned, in my view the amount allowed by the Tribunal on the death of the deceased, namely to the extent of Rs. 7,10,775 + Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 25,000/- = Rs. 8,35,775/-, primarily on the basis and discarding even the claim of the claimant-respondents that the deceased was working in Unique Chhatravas(Hostel) as a Superintendent, and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- and despite a certificate having been produced on record, the Tribunal has discarded the claim, however, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the minimum wages which were prevailing at the time when the accident took place, and in my view when the Tribunal has itself taken the minimum wages as the income of the deceased, it cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. In my view, taking into consideration the age of the deceased below 40, the future prospect has rightly been allowed by the Tribunal taking into consideration not only the judgment of this court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gautam & Others 2014(3) DNJ (Raj.) 925 , but there are several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court viz. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 , Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54 , Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company (2014) 1 TAC 369 (SC) , Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways (2014) 1 TAC 711 (SC) , G. Dhanasekar v. M.D., Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. SLP No.35565- 35566 dated 12.2.2014 , wherein it has been held that even where the deceased is said to be self employed then too, the future prospect is required to be allowed. Other amount allowed, is also just and proper. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any justification in the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants. 8. Insofar as the amount of expenses allowed on account of damage to the jeep is concerned, it is admitted that the vehicle was insured and Tribunal has taken into consideration the original bills which have been exhibited from page 14 to 25 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal taking into consideration the mechanical report of the jeep, which damaged to a large extent, and the claim has rightly been allowed because the vehicle was owned by the deceased and was duly insured with the insurance company, therefore, in my view, taking into consideration the original bills produced, the amount has rightly been allowed by the Tribunal and I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the appellants. 9. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******