JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - Heard Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K.R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, on the point of negligence as well as the quantum of compensation awarded therein. 3. Claimant had filed a claim petition claiming that the deceased was working as ED packer and postman in the postal department. On 21.09.2011 at about 5.40 p.m., when the deceased was standing by the side of NH4 at Kora bus stand waiting for the bus to load postal bag, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-52/5166 being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Tumkur side and dashed against the deceased and sped away. On account of the same, he died on the spot instantaneously. 4. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,41,000/- with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants namely respondents No.1 and 2 herein, the parents of the deceased. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence on record has erroneously come to the conclusion that the accident was on account of rash and negligence driving by the driver of the lorry. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to notice Ex.P12 Spot Mahazar which depicts that at the alleged spot of accident, there was a two lane dedicated road for traffic with a service road on one side and it is guarded by a high wall on either side to prevent any road use/road crossing. It is further contended that the deceased was not waiting by the road side to deliver postal bag on the other hand, the accident has occurred while he was trying to cross the road. Therefore, he is solely responsible for the accident. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the income of the deceased is not proved as required under law and therefore a sum of Rs.6,176/- per month taken as income of the deceased and further adding 50% towards future prospects was not proper. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal. 7. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 contends that PW2 is an eye witness to the incident. He has clearly deposed that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending lorry. At the time of accident, the deceased was standing by the side of the road and due to the impact, the head of the deceased was severed from the body. He submits that considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was solely on account of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 would also contend that the deceased was a government employee and as per the salary certificate produced and marked as Ex.P10, he was drawing a salary of Rs.6,176/- and therefore, the Tribunal by rightly placing reliance on the said salary certificate, awarded a just compensation. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 9. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. The accident has occurred on 21.09.2011 at about 5.40 p.m., The first information report came to be registered on the very same day at about 7.15 p.m., In the first information report itself, it is stated that the deceased was standing by the side of the road on NH4 waiting for the bus at Kora bus stand, to deliver postal bag. At that time, he was knocked by the offending lorry which was coming from Tumkur side. The claimants have examined PW2, an eye witness. He has deposed in his evidence that the deceased was waiting at Kora bus stand on the left side of the road to deliver the postal bag, at that time, the driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-52/5166 by driving the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, on account of which, he sustained grievous injuries. His head was severed from the body and he died at the spot. There is nothing elicited in the crossexamination of the said witness to discard his evidence. The FIR was registered against the driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-52/5166. 10. His head was severed from the body and he died at the spot. There is nothing elicited in the crossexamination of the said witness to discard his evidence. The FIR was registered against the driver of lorry bearing registration No.KA-52/5166. 10. I have perused the spot mahazar marked as Ex.P2 as well as the sketch at Ex.P12. The appellant has not examined any witness to refute the claim. There is nothing placed on record to show that the accident did not occur in the manner stated by the claimants. The sketch at Ex.P12 would also show that the spot of accident is on the edge of the road on the left side of NH4 leading from Tumkur towards Sira. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accident has occurred when the deceased was trying to cross the road is without any basis and the same cannot be accepted. 11. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident. In the post mortem report also his age is shown as 38 years. The appellant herein has not placed any material to the contrary to dispute the age of the deceased. 12. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working in the postal department as ED packer and postman. The claimants have produced and marked Ex.P10, the salary certificate which shows that he was drawing a salary of Rs.6,176/- per month. The said certificate was issued by the Post Master (H.S.G01), Tumakur H.O. The said certificate has not been disproved. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the deceased as shown in Ex.P10, further adding 50% of the income towards future prospects as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , as the deceased was aged below 40 years. The appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.