JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3/6/2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of award. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the respondent no. 1 inter alia with the averments that on 27/10/1998 Ruga Ram s/o of respondent no. 1 had gone with appellant in Tractor No. RJ-19-IR-3652 and when said Ruga Ram was removing stone from behind the tyres of trolley of the Tractor, slabs on which trolley was standing gave way and the trolley sunk into the soak pit, Ruga Ram came under the trolley, resulting in his death. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,34,000/- was claimed. 3. The application was resisted by the non-claimants alleging that the accident was an act of God and none of the non-claimants were negligent and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and on behalf of non-claimants two witnesses were examined. 5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the appellant. The Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/- and exonerated the non-applicant no. 1 from payment of compensation. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the appellant. It was submitted that from the averments contained in the application, it was apparent that the slabs covering the soak pit, on which the trolley of the Tractor was standing gave way, resulting in deceased coming under the trolley and succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of appellant and, as such, the award impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal awarded the compensation taking the age of the claimant at 45 years, which is incorrect as she was aged 53 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified. 8. 7. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal awarded the compensation taking the age of the claimant at 45 years, which is incorrect as she was aged 53 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be modified. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare perusal of the finding recorded by the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal after thoroughly considering the oral and documentary evidence, which came on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any perversity in the said finding so as to require interference in the present appeal. 10. From the facts which have come on record it is apparent that the Tractor along with its trolley was parked in such a manner that trolley was standing on the slabs covering the soak pit, which fact itself is sufficient to conclude that the appellant was negligent in driving the tractor/trolley so as to park it in the above stated manner and, therefore, submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard have no substance. 11. The Tribunal irrespective of age of the claimant i.e mother of the deceased, has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and, therefore, the submission that the claimant was aged 53 years and not 45 years also has no implication in awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which amount cannot be said to be excessive so as to require interference in the present appeal. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.