JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.6.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh (‘the Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 29.10.2014. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants-parents of Rajesh with the averments that on 13.6.2014 at about 8.30 p.m. Rajesh was riding his bicycle when the offending vehicle struck him, resulting in Rajesh getting stuck by front portion of the vehicle which resulted in grievous injuries to him, to which he succumbed. Based on the said facts, compensation to the tune of Rs. 49,63,000/- was claimed. 3. The application was contested by driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. Driver of the offending vehicle contended that the deceased cyclist without giving any indication came in front of the vehicle, which resulted in the accident. Owner of the vehicle submitted that the liability, if any, was of the Insurance Company. 4. The Insurance Company contested the application on the grounds that the deceased did know how to ride a cycle, the accident occurred in the middle of the road and claimants were not entitled to any compensation. 5. The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited. On behalf of non-claimants two witnesses were examined and 03 documents were exhibited. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero. The driver was in possession of a valid driving licence and as such the Insurance Company was liable. While assessing the amount of compensation, the Tribunal based on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Others vs. Lala and Others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 30,000/- p.a. and after applying the multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/-. 7. 30,000/- p.a. and after applying the multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/-. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of Bolero. It was submitted that from the evidence available on record, it is apparent that the deceased while riding the bicycle came in front of the Jeep in the middle of the road and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero. 8. Further submission was made that in any case the present was a case of contributory negligence and finding in this regard recorded by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. It was also submitted that excessive compensation has been paid by the Tribunal, therefore, on that count also the award impugned deserves interference by this Court. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 10. The Tribunal after thoroughly examining the oral and documentary evidence, which came on record, gave exhaustive findings with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any perversity in the said findings so as to require any interference in the present appeal. 11. The submission made regarding contributory negligence also does not require any independent adjudication in view of categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal. 12. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is in tune with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), therefore, the compensation awarded does not call for any interference. 13. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.