JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 26/11/2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident Claims Case No.101/2018, whereby an amount of Rs.18,84,400/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents on account of death of Wag Singh in the accident which occurred in the intervening night of 31/12/2017-01/01/2018. 2. The Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants/respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has attacked the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 on the ground that learned Tribunal has not evaluated the evidence in the correct perspective and, therefore, has erred while recording the finding on issue No.1 against the present appellant. 5. Learned counsel further submits that as per the site plan prepared by the Police during the course of investigation, it is borne out that the Jeep was being driven by Wag Singh on the wrong side. He submits that the road on which the accident took place was four-lane and it was the driver of the Jeep who came from the opposite direction, whereas Tractor was moving in right direction. Learned counsel further submits that the fact that the Jeep was being driven on the wrong direction was noticed by the Police Authorities in their Rojnamcha prepared immediately after the accident. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the reply to the notice received by the owner of the Tractor under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act and by the driver of the Tractor under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the Jeep was being driven from the wrong direction and the Tractor was being driven by driver of the Tractor in correct direction. Therefore, no fault can be found with the driver of the Tractor. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the pleadings of the claimants, it is not clear that the Jeep was being driven in the right direction. Learned counsel submits that for the claim to be maintained under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence of the offending vehicle is required to be proved for getting the compensation. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the pleadings of the claimants, it is not clear that the Jeep was being driven in the right direction. Learned counsel submits that for the claim to be maintained under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence of the offending vehicle is required to be proved for getting the compensation. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the cases of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428 & the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla& Ors., (2007)13 SCC 476 . 6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.3 is also laconic as the Tribunal has taken into consideration only the submissions made in the claim petition and relying upon the statement of AW.1 Smt.Sohan Kanwar, the income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs.9,000/- per month, which is on higher side. He submits that the Tribunal, while determining the annual income of the deceased, has wrongly relied upon the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Kala Devi & Ors vs Bhagwan Das Chauhan & Ors, M.A.C.D.2014 (S.C.) 459. 7. Learned counsel submits that there is no documentary evidence on record which shows that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/-per month and merely producing the driving licence, it cannot be said with certainty that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.9,000/- per month. He submits that the specifications of the deceased with respect to his livelihood has not been made in the claim petition and it has only been mentioned that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000-20000 on account of performing the work of a driver. He further submits that nothing has been brought on record to show that the deceased was involved in purchasing and selling of the vehicles through which any income was derived by the deceased Wag Singh. To canvass his argument, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani vs National Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 492 . He, therefore, submits that the finding on issue No.3 is also required to be set aside. 8. To canvass his argument, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani vs National Insurance Company Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 492 . He, therefore, submits that the finding on issue No.3 is also required to be set aside. 8. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and the claim petition has been decided in the year 2020 and, therefore, the interest which has been awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of 9% is exorbitant and is required to be reduced suitably. 9. E converso, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that the Jeep was being driven by the deceased Wag Singh on right direction and in the claim petition, it has categorically been mentioned that the Jeep was coming from Ahmedabad and from a close reading of the site plan, Ex.P.4, it is clear that at the time of accident, the Jeep was being driven on the right side of the road and since, it is a four-lane road, it cannot be assumed that the Jeep was coming from the opposite direction i.e. wrong side. He submits that the pleadings in the claim petition are very well corroborated with the site plan and the averments made therein also show that the Jeep was being driven by the deceased Wag Singh in the correct direction. He further submits that the defence taken by the Insurance Company in the reply filed before Tribunal is only that the accident occurred because the driver of the Jeep was sleepy at 3.30 a.m. in the morning and because of his slackness, the accident occurred. 10. Learned counsel submits that it was not the contention/defence of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal in their reply that the Jeep was being driven in wrong direction on a four-lane road causing accident in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the Jeep was being driven from Gujarat to Udaipur and was being plied on the correct side of the road and because of the negligence of the Tractor driver who was coming from the opposite direction rather a wrong direction, the accident occurred. There was no fault on the part of the driver of the Jeep and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. There was no fault on the part of the driver of the Jeep and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. Learned counsel submits that in the statement of the wife of the deceased AW.1 Sohan Kanwar , it was categorically stated by her that her husband was earning Rs.18000-20000 per month by doing the work of driver and beside it he was also involved in the transaction of the sale and purchase of the vehicles. In the cross-examination, no contrary evidence has been brought on record. Therefore, no fault was committed by the Tribunal while recording the finding on issue No.3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 12. For appreciation of the arguments on issue No.1, a close scrutiny of the side plan reveals that the Jeep was being driven from Gujarat to Udaipur and, therefore, the same was being driven from markers No.1 to 2 on National Highway No.27 which shows that the Jeep was being driven on its correct side of the road. The fact that the Tractor was coming from the opposite direction is proved as the accident site is marked as ?X? in the site plan. Therefore, at the time of accident, the Jeep was being driven on the correct side of the road and the Tractor was being driven from the opposite side i.e. in the wrong side of the road. Since it is a four-lane road, therefore, Tractor was supposed to drive from Marker Nos.4 to 3 instead of Marker No.2 to 1. Other documents on the basis of which the Investigation was conducted by the Police and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company are not convincing on the ground that the site plan clearly shows that the Jeep was being driven on the correct side and, therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the Jeep was negligent or was at fault. More particularly, this Court finds that had it been the case that Jeep was being driven on the wrong side of the four-lane road, the reply of the Insurance Company would have projected the same in the very first instance but the reply of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal is silent on the same and it is only said that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of Jeep who was sleepy at the time of accident. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the documents and after appreciation of the site plan, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and it can safely be presumed that since the Tractor was being driven on the wrong side, thus, there is no negligence of the Jeep driver rather it is the driver of the Tractor who was negligent in driving the Tractor and causing the accident in the present case. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1, therefore, is affirmed. 13. The amount of Rs.9,000/- taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.3 also does not suffer from infirmity as it has come on record that the deceased was involved in the profession of driving and as per the statement of AW.1 Smt. Sohan Kanwar, she has categorically stated in her statement that her husband was earning Rs.600-700 per day and approximately Rs.18000-20000 per month by driving the vehicles. It is also stated that the deceased was also involved in the sale and purchase of the cars. In the cross-examination, nothing contrary has been said. Therefore, learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the fact that by doing the work of a driver, the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/-. Though the analogy that the drivers in the present days are earning Rs.9,000/- as a salary is not correct, however, it is a common knowledge that nowadays for hiring a driver even on day to day basis, Rs.600-700 per day has to be paid. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the present case for the reason that it has come on record in the statement of AW.1 Smt. Sohan Kanwar that deceased was earning Rs.600-700 per day and nothing has been stated by her contrary to the same even in her cross-examination. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the present case for the reason that it has come on record in the statement of AW.1 Smt. Sohan Kanwar that deceased was earning Rs.600-700 per day and nothing has been stated by her contrary to the same even in her cross-examination. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is ample evidence on record which shows that income derived by the deceased was correctly assessed to Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal after marshaling the facts and appreciation of the evidence on record rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.3 is also just and proper and same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 14. So far as interest @ 9% per annum awarded by Tribunal is concerned, the same appears to be on slightly higher side and, therefore, this Court feels that the same should be reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appeal of the appellant/Insurance Company stands disposed of with a modification that the award of the Tribunal is maintained, however, the interest awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The appellant/Insurance Company is granted 30 days time from today to comply with the order passed by this Court. Record of the Tribunal as well as record of the criminal case be sent back forthwith to the respective Courts.