JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 28.4.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Special Judge, Decoity Affected Area, Dholpur, in Claim Case No. 172/2013. 2. Brief facts noticed on perusal of the impugned award are that on 27.3.2013 at about 4:00 P.M. the motorcycle bearing registration no.RJ 11SC 9926, on which deceased Munna was sitting, collided with another motorcycle bearing registration no.RJ 11SB 4900 near the brick factory on the way from village Aligarh to Badi, as a result of which Munna died at the spot and Makhan, who was sitting on the other motorcycle, received injuries to which he succumbed during his treatment in the hospital. FIR No. 98/2013 came to be lodged at Police Station Kanchanpur (Dholpur). Dependants of both the deceased persons filed separate claim petitions, which were decided by the Tribunal vide the common impugned award granting compensation of Rs. 9,01,400/- to the dependants of deceased Munna, respondents herein. Hence this appeal by the Insurance Company. 3. Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the impugned award is illegal, unjust and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the point of contributory negligence. Counsel for the appellant contended that there was head on collision between the motorcycles which is insured with the appellant Company and another motorcycle on which deceased Munna was travelling and, therefore, contended that when there was a head on collision of two motorcycles, to hold the appellant Insurance Company liable for the entire amount, is unjustified and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The finding ought to have been that drivers of both the vehicles should have been held equally responsible. Even the roznamcha report and other material proved that since there was a head on collision, therefore, negligence of the deceased was also there and at least 50% deserves to be reduced on account of contributory negligence. Even the FIR comes to the same conclusion and thus, contended that the claim is unjust and the order is perverse. He also contended that the amount allowed at Rs. 9,01,400/- is highly excessive and unreasonable, and there was no justification for an amount which has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 9,01,400/-. There was no basis for assuming salary of Rs. He also contended that the amount allowed at Rs. 9,01,400/- is highly excessive and unreasonable, and there was no justification for an amount which has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 9,01,400/-. There was no basis for assuming salary of Rs. 200/- per day and there was no evidence of even earning of any income placed on record by the claimants, and even there was no material about age of the deceased. Therefore, the claim allowed is highly excessive and unjust. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced and perused the impugned award. 5. Admittedly on 27.11.2013, deceased Munna was sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle bearing no. RJ 14 SC 9926 and was going towards Aligarh, and the motorcycle collided with another motorcycle bearing no.RJ.11 SB 4900 coming from the side of Aligarh going towards Badi, as a result of which he received grievous injuries and died at the spot. Claim was lodged by the claimants. The Tribunal has analysed the material placed by the claimants on record and after considering all relevant material placed on record, passed the impugned award. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of Mahendra, who happened to be the eye-witness and who at the particular time of incident was working in his field stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing no. RJ 11 SB 4900 which collided with the motorcycle on which Munna was sitting as a pillion rider, and in my view, the Tribunal has analysed each and every issue, and has rightly come to the conclusion in awarding the claim. The appellant has failed to prove any illegality or perversity in the award of the Tribunal. 6. 1 The finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was at a high speed, and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, rather than the vehicle where the deceased Munna was sitting. The Tribunal has taken note of the statements of A.W.3 Heti Bai, who had asserted that her husband, Makhan, was also with Kishan Singh in his motorcycle bearing no. RJ 11 SB 4900 sitting as a pillion rider and returning from Luthpura to his village Hulasipura, and she stated that the other motorcycle bearing no. The Tribunal has taken note of the statements of A.W.3 Heti Bai, who had asserted that her husband, Makhan, was also with Kishan Singh in his motorcycle bearing no. RJ 11 SB 4900 sitting as a pillion rider and returning from Luthpura to his village Hulasipura, and she stated that the other motorcycle bearing no. RJ 14 SC 9926 being driven by Munna was hit by the motorcycle being driven by Kishan Singh in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, it can be presumed that the offending vehicle being driven by Kishan Singh, was in such a high speed and being driven in a rash and negligent manner that not only Munna but Makhan also died. The Tribunal, taking note of the charge-sheet, FIR, Post Mortem report, site plan, notice under Section 133, mechanical report of both the vehicles, etc. has in my view correctly come to the conclusion that there was no negligence of the deceased and the negligence was only of Kishan Singh, who was driving the motorcycle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Admittedly, all the issues have been decided against the Insurance Company, and no material worth consideration has been placed on record by the counsel for appellant to come to a different conclusion or to dispel the reasoning given by the Tribunal. 7. The claim of the Insurance Company that the amount allowed is excessive, in my view, cannot be said to be so because the Tribunal, after considering the age of the deceased and taking his per day income at Rs. 200/-, has allowed compensation. The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that there was no material for earning of income, has assumed minimum wages of Rs. 200/- per day, and taking note of the fact that the incident is of the year 2013, and at least such amount must be earned by a man aged 44 years, and even the version of the wife of the deceased has been taken note of that though the income claimed was about Rs. 7-8 thousand, but that too has been discarded and the minimum wages has been taken into consideration, which in my view cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. 7-8 thousand, but that too has been discarded and the minimum wages has been taken into consideration, which in my view cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. The Tribunal has taken note of other factors, as well as multiplier and taking into note that the deceased was aged about 44 years and as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the same has been applied. Since the dependants of the deceased are seven people including wife and six children, both daughters and sons, between the age group of 5 and 15 years, and dependants being more than 6, the deduction of 1/5 this also in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The amount of Rs. 70,000/- allowed on account of loss of love and affection, cannot be said to be excessive or abnormal looking to the age of widow who is stated to be of the age of 43 years with two minor sons, and four minor daughters. Therefore, in my view, the amount allowed is quite fair and reasonable, and is not at all excessive. The amount allowed as funeral expenses at Rs. 25,000/- is also in accordance with the expenses being incurred on funeral and other last rites of the deceased. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, in my view the award of the Tribunal is just and fair and I do not find any perversity or illegality in it. The appeal being devoid of any merits, is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******