JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.—Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.P.S. Parmar and Sri Sujit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against Smt. Urmila Devi and others against award dated 28.5.2009 of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 501 of 2018 (Smt. Urmila Devi and others v. Ratan Sen Singh and another), with this contention that tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and laws laid before it. 3. It was very clear from the site map that the accident taken place on triangle of the road on collusion between two vehicles, when the motorcycle driver had taken turn on this triangle came in the middle of the road and the deceased was pillion rider of above motorcycle. Hence, the tribunal ignored this fact of contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver, the sole responsibility of truck driver and its insurance company has been fixed whereas this was not the sole negligence and rashness of the driver of the truck concerned. Eye-witness account of PW-2 was of interested witness and this was the basis for judgment. PW-3, Rajendra Bihari Dwivedi was also the real brother of deceased and was driver of above motorcycle, hence, he too was interested eye-witness. Earning has been fixed on the basis of assumption because no documentary evidence of earning was there. The contention was of monthly earning of Rs. 20,000/-, out of which he was earning Rs. 10,000/- from agriculture and Rs. 10,000/- from profession of advocacy, however, there is no documentary proof of income whatsoever and no income tax return was filed, on record. Income of deceased as claimed was absolutely incorrect and false. This was with contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. A compensation in the tune of Rs. 7,13,500/- alongwith 6% interest was awarded, which was excessively high. Hence, the counsel for other side argued that the deceased was a prominent lawyer of more than 20 years standing practice with agricultural land and the income given, was out of both of the above sources, which has been properly taken into account by the Tribunal. The contributory negligence was not accepted and there is no negligence on account of motorcycle rider. 4. The contributory negligence was not accepted and there is no negligence on account of motorcycle rider. 4. The Motor Accident Claim Petition was filed by Smt. Urmila Devi against Ratan Sen Singh and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs. 23,40,000/-. The husband of claimant i.e. deceased Surendra Bihari Dwivedi, resident of village Bahadurpur, P.S. Holagarh, Tehsil Soraon District Allahabad, was an advocate and having agricultural holding, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- from agriculture and Rs. 10,000/- from advocacy thereby a total monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-. He was maintaining his wife with the above earnings. On 24.3.2008 at about 1:30 a.m. while he was riding over a motorcycle, being driven by his brother Gyanendra Bihari Dwivedi, was on his way for Allahabad on Motorcycle No. U.P.32AK/9449 and when he reached at Shantipuram Chauraha P.S. Soraon District Allahabad a truck registration No. U.P.72C/9693 had rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, resulting instant death of Advocate Surendra Bahadur Dwivedi on the spot. He was aged about 52 years, his wife is the claimant, Urmila Devi and his offspring Chandra Mauli, Chandrabhal, Chandrajeet and Chandrasheel are the sons and Manju, Sanju and Anju are the daughters. 5. The owner of the above truck is opposite party No. 1, Ratan Sen Singh. This truck was insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. with effect from 10.10.2007 to 9.10.2008. In the written statement, owner Sri Ratan Sen Singh admitted the truck to be fully and validly insured by above insurance company and being driven by Hari Prashad having valid and effective driving licence with him. The terms of the policy were being complied and the truck was on way from Pratapgarh to Shankargarh. When the accident occurred near Shantipuram Chauraha, this truck was halted there and someone implicated this truck for that accident. This accident was owing to rashness and negligence of the motorcycle driver itself. He was with no valid and effective driving licence and the truck of the defendant was implicated by registration of a false F.I.R. against it. The Insurance Company filed its written statement with admission of negligence of the truck concerned and denial of the same being driven with all the valid papers and the burden for proving the same was held to be of the claimant and the owner of the truck. The Insurance Company filed its written statement with admission of negligence of the truck concerned and denial of the same being driven with all the valid papers and the burden for proving the same was held to be of the claimant and the owner of the truck. The driving licence of the motorcycle was disputed and this accident was said to have occurred owing to the contributory negligence of motorcycle driver itself. 6. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal: (i) Whether accident occurred at 1:30 p.m. on 23.4.2008 at Shantipuram Chauraha Fafamau within the area of Police Station Soraon by a truck Registration No. U.P.72C9693 and Motorcycle Registration No. U.P.32A.K./9449 by driving rashly and negligently by truck driver concerned. Only Surendra Bihari Dwivedi was dead on the spot? (ii) Whether truck bearing Registration No. U.P.32C/9693 was being driven by a driver having valid and effective driving licence? (iii) Whether truck bearing Registration No. U.P.32C/9693 on the above date of accident, was validly insured by the Insurance Company? (iv) Whether above truck was with valid permit? (v) Whether the accident was owing to contributory negligence of motorcycle driver? (vi) Whether the petition was defective because of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. non joining of Insurance Company of motorcycle concerned. (vii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get the compensation? If yes then how much and from whom? 7. Claimant examined herself as PW-1 and PW-2 as Chandra Mauli Dwivedi. The documentary evidence furnished as 7C ie. Chik F.I.R., Autopsy Examination Report Paper No. 8C/1, 8C/2 and 27C from record 12 and the Chik F.I.R. Paper No. 28C/1, 28C/2, Charge-sheet No. 29C/1, 29C/2 filed against truck driver Hari Prashad, Data Inquest Report and the Technical Inspection Report No. 32C/1, 32C/2 of truck bearing Registration No. U.P.72C/9693, Technical Inspection Report No. 33C/1, 33C/2, Site map Paper No. 34C/1, 34C/2, the release application of truck filed and order by passed by Magistrate paper No. 35C/1, 35C/2, the release order of motorcycle passed by Magistrate Paper No. 36C/1, 36C/2, the Advocate Registration Certificate of deceased No. 37C and the documents of Khatauni Paper No. 38C/1 alongwith the Registration of Insurance, documents of the truck driving license of the truck driver, evidence of permit, pollution control report, were filed on record. 8. Tribunal heard and passed the impugned order. 9. 8. Tribunal heard and passed the impugned order. 9. The only argument of learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the contributory negligence on the basis of site map on record and the other one is the determination of monthly income of deceased. 10. The site map itself reveals that the place of occurrence i.e. ‘X’ is towards the left from the truck shown in the map i.e. it was not dashed straightway on the lane truck was moving, rather it turned left and dashed with the motorcycle registration No. U.P.32A.K./9449 “res ipsa loquitur” reveals that this accident was because of turning of the truck towards the left lane where motorcycle was on its way, hence, it itself reveals the rashness and negligence of the truck driver. Moreso, the investigation in the Case Crime No. has resulted into filing of charge-sheet against the truck driver itself and the copy of charge-sheet is on record. Hence, the question of contributory negligence, is not there. Moreso, the person driving the motorcycle has been examined as PW-3 and on the basis of his testimony, there is no evidence of contributory negligence resulting this accident. Hence, this argument is not sustainable. 11. So far as the quantum of earning is concerned, admittedly deceased was a practicing advocate having agricultural land with it’s income. The documentary evidence of registration of advocacy and the Khatauni of agricultural land, is on record. Hence, it has rightly been assessed to be earning in the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month on the basis of long length of practice and agricultural land with deceased. Hence, this argument is also not sustainable. On the over appreciation of the fact and evidence adduced therein as well as the law pressed the judgment is fully relied on the basis of law and fact placed before the Tribunal. 12. This appeal merits its dismissal, hence, it is accordingly dismissed.